Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The arguments over the necessity to produce reliable sources to prevent original research were convincing. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
African Americans in Davenport, Iowa[edit]
- African Americans in Davenport, Iowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Most of this page has nothing to do with African Americans in Davenport. 9,000 non-notable citizens does not warrant a page. Most of it is unsourced except the notable natives (which can be found on the Davenport, Iowa and Quad Cities pages already) and the "Local African American Firsts" page which is not notable at all. The rest is unsourced speculation about where African Americans hang out and go to church, along with unsourced school information. CTJF83Talk 23:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it I support keeping this article, but having someone re-write and Wikifiy it. The African American community in Davenport is notable by itself; as are all communities. If you start deleting communities because they have non-notable population, that would probably remove a third of all Wikipedia pages and 75 percent of all Iowa pages. A Black community of any sort in Iowa I think is very notable. Yes, this article is sloppy and clearly the work of someone's first attempt at a page, they seem bewildered by the whole process and need support. This is a big topic, and probably not a good one for a new editor to take on, but they are merely following the Wikipedia rule: Be Bold. We should also remember the precepts: Please do not Bite the Newcomers and Assume Good Faith. Peace, Billwhittaker (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable synthesis. It does not seem reasonable that we should have this article, nor any others of the form Members of $race in $city, barring perhaps the largest cities — unless a reliable source has written about that particular intersection of race and city, we should not be covering it. Stifle (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No problem with the topic itself, but I agree with Stifle's conclusions: really just some few referenced facts cobbled together with speculation and original research. To be sure, minority populations are notable in certain ways, but again they have to be studied and deemed significant by reliable sources, which we don't have here. No prejudice to the creator, but this topic doesn't deserve an article unless reliable sources are produced in the future. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research and an essay. Themfromspace (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The notability of the subject is clearly established in the article: "Of that number, 9.2 percent - or 9,200 citizens are African American. For comparison, the average African American population in Iowa cities is 2.5 percent." Article needs improvement and any OR sections should be deleted. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Statistics do not enable a subject to meet the notability guidelines, look over WP:N to see what does. Themfromspace (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it As the original "overmatched" author, I am curious why the largest African American community in Iowa isn't worth an entry. And, since the article is evolving on a weekly basis, I believe it will achieve Wiki excellence in no time. I've been adding links and sources and will continue to do so. But, consider the subject matter -- these black churches, gathering spots and the school strategies families were subjected to have historically been ignored or swept under the rug. Shall we do so again? I want to put in the fact that in the 1960s African Americans were charged a $500 fee if they chose to live outside of certain neighborhoods -- which was a big factor in how these Iowa ghettoes were created. Since no one will go on record, I have to source that offline and figure out where I can cite it online. And, since I was a witness to the children from Mississippi being held back, I know for a fact it happened, but once again, I must find a reliable source. I will do so, but investigations take time. For the person who said it's not about African Americans, I am flabbergasted. I don't know how to answer that charge since it is patently incorrect. This is not a history I am re-writing here; this is a history that happened. You may not approve, but if Wiki claims to be an encylopedia of human experience, then I don't know how you can consider this an unworthy experience. Since gay people are a smaller population than black people -- they constitute 10% or less of the population -- should we exclude their histories, too? Stonewall, after all, was just a few people in New York. My intent is to collaboratively create a page much like African Americans in Omaha, which is very well done, and to inspire others to chronicle the African American histories of their own cities and towns. These histories don't fold neatly into existing Wiki city articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk • contribs)
- Suggested Compromise I think that there is enough disagreement about deletion that we should give this article time to develop. Personally, I want to see it work. How about tagging it with Template:Underconstruction, Template:Refimprove, Template:Cleanup instead of deletion? Perhaps post to Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Iowa that this article needs some attention. I also hope that the main contributors sign up for usernames, since that will make communication a lot easier, use the Log In button at the top to start. I can really see the core of a solid article here. Billwhittaker (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The histories of gays in general is different then black history for Davenport. There is no page about gays in San Francisco, which has 15.5% gays and has 256,313 gays, far more than Davenport's 9,000 black residents. If we include this, why not include large gay populations, or Hispanic populations, etc. Where do you stop the inclusions for these type of articles? Also, Des Moines has over 15,000 blacks, so Davenport doesn't have the largest black community in Iowa. I also said the a lot of the article doesn't have to do with Davenport blacks, as apposed to blacks in other parts of the country. CTJF83Talk 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested Compromise I am fine with a clean-up tag. That appears to be a reasonable compromise to me. In answer to your question, I think it's not in the best interest of Wiki to ponder where does this type of inclusion end. I think it's better served by pushing to the edge of whatever human knowledge can be gathered. In this article, there was much more specific information about Davenport's African Americans, but it was deleted. So, I have learned to adhere more closely to Wiki style. Regarding your comment re: gay communities, if a city has a gay community, why keep it on the periphery? Wiki it. I agree, though, that gay history and black history are very different. Cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York etc definitely have "gay communities." No question. But, I would argue against that being the case for small towns, which may have social networks but not full-blown communities as I understand the term. But, black communities have existed in such settings because it was a matter of survival and Davenport, Iowa required as much of a survival mindset as other, larger cities. Our churches, our pastors, our meeting places, where we went to school, where we ate, our outcasts, our (usually unofficial) leaders are part of our makeup. Those of us who lived it know what it was like. Those who never lived it -- our sons and daughters -- need to know this history. This article celebrates that fact.
Delete Non-notable community. If this is a notable community, then I defy you to find me a community that isn't notable. SkipSmith (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It I'll take Skip up on his challenge. He offers a specious argument. It's like trying to prove a negative. The community is notable because it is a community with a history of struggle that is unique. It's notable because it's a community that has generated a Super Bowl champion, an actress, an author and likely many more nationally known figures. It's notable because this is precisely the type of history traditional encyclopedia's overlooked for no good reason, which is part of the rationale for creating Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk • contribs)
- Thanks for all of your feel-good PC buzzwords, now do you have any reliable sources to back that up? The individual people deserve to be mentioned, but in this way it is original research. They should be mentioned in their own article if they are notable, or as part of a larger article about a subject that has reliable sources. It's a lot easier to link a Super Bowl champion with his team than with the collection of African Americans in Davenport. I believe anything having to do with this subject will fall within the grounds of WP:OR, but I'm welcome to see a draft article if you could write one up. Themfromspace (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, if anything African-Americans in Iowa with reliable and scholarly sources are a more encyclopedic topic, we just can't have articles on every ethnic group of every small town without strong sources. Secret account 14:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI am quite the PC type, you're right. I don't know which words are the buzzwords, but I'll take you at your word. I don't see being PC (sensitive to other cultures) as a negative. I would argue that a player belongs to his hometown before his team, but as opposed to going down that road, explain what you would like to see in a draft article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.2.47 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although this is a different IP than the one who !voted to keep up above, he's responding to me as if I had addressed him before. I advise the admin to make discretion when considering these two 75.x !votes. Themfromspace (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am obviously the same person and I wasn't trying to hide that fact. So, to avoid confusion, I changed my tag above to "comment" which I was unaware of as an option. But, I still would like to read your thoughts re: a draft article. This seems like a no-brainer issue to me if we're talking a comprehensive encyclopedia. The article merits inclusion and expansion. If there were an African American museum in Davenport, would there be a push to delete an entry about it because there were only 9,000 people alive in the town at any one time? Shouldn't that 9,000 number then be the dividing line for all entries? Be it Army battallions, private colleges, political movements; if it's quantified, it's quantified -- 9,000 and no fewer. That seems arbitrary to me. And, as far as notable, I believe it's extremely noteworthy to have thriving black communities in Iowa -- a state most view as white. Already the history of Brixton, IA, the first black town in the state is fading away. That was a thousand or fewer people, but a book has been written about it. There is no presence on Wiki. I can only assume, based on the observations of those wishing to delete the article in question, that such histories are not worthy of Wiki entries? If that is the case, I have a serious problem with Wikipedia and its contributors who are so inclined.
- Wikipedia already has a dividing line for article topics, which is the notability guidelines. This article lacks the reliable sources required by the notability guidelines. The sources need to be about the article topic, which is African Americans in Davenport. If you find sources about individual African Americans in Davenport, they can't be used for this article since it would be a synthesis of research, which would violate our no original research policy. I'm sorry, I know there's lots of policies and guidelines that might not make sense to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but that's how this encyclopedia is built. Themfromspace (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest this leans toward, at worst, an under construction tag and certainly not deletion. From the Wiki article on Notability: "Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.
"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:
"Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject[7] for advice on where to look for sources..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.217.172 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are commen strawmen arguments used here to justify the inclusion of articles that do not meet the notability guidelines. A common practice that can be done when an article doesn't appear to meet the noability guidelines, but sources are claimed to exists and not yet shown, is to userfy the article, which means moving them into the user's personal page. I don't think this can be done with IP editors, though. When an article is in a userspace, the user is free to work on the article until it meets the guidelines, upon which the article is reentered after a decision at DRV (which should be successful if the article meets the guidelines). Themfromspace (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, removing unreferenced material. As to Nom: "9,000 non-notable citizens does not warrant a page." What number does? The answer is, there is no number, as this is not a part of the notability guideline. "Because similar articles don't exist" also does not speak to notability. There are lots of notable things without Wikipedia articles. The question, is the _topic_ (not the existing article) something which _can_ be referenced and would meet the general notability guideline. As the existing references establish the demographic presence of a community at this location, this is a notable community. Period. The removal of unreferenced material does not require an afd. It requires editing: let's begin editing this into something which contains only verifiable material. T L Miles (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:NOTPAPER. No major claims to notability, but enough minor ones.. 9000 member community, unique for Iowa and the greater surrounding area, Dred Scott, part of greater history of blacks migration to the Midwest. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there still aren't any reliable sources found that could back up this article. Themfromspace (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Right now or eternally? Wikipedia has no deadline --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there now are reliable third party sources. Elements not referenced should be removed, others improved. Town was specifically a place of refuge for African Americans before and during the Civil War. There are at leset four recent articles in the Quad City paper on the history of the African American community here. They are referenced in the article now. T L Miles (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources have to be about the subject. Yes, the facts have to be properly sourced, but the topic of the article has to be demonstrated to be notable which is done by providing sources about the topic itself. Just using sourced facts to draw an unsourced conclusion is original research. Themfromspace (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsourced conclusion is that there is an African American Community in Davenport Iowa? The sources are about the subject. What is unclear? That there are African Americans in this city? that their history in Davenport is notable? that their numbers in Davenport are notable? That Communities of cities are not notable? What about African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska? That's a Good Article currently. How about Mexicans in Omaha, Nebraska? The subject is "African Americans in Davenport, Iowa". One of the articles is entitled "Much of Davenport’s black history lost to the wrecking ball". Would it satisfy your concerns if the article were moved to a different name? Perhaps "Black history of Davenport, Iowa"? That would therefore be identical to the title of one third party reliable source.T L Miles (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Black history of Davenport, Iowa would be a much better topic, which could retain some of the same information. But the topics are fundamentally different. I'd support this article with a rename and a focus on historical background instead of current demographics. Themfromspace (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there still aren't any reliable sources found that could back up this article. Themfromspace (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stifle and Nyttend. Some facts glued together with OR synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:22, 25 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. The inclusion of reliable sources satisfies guidelines. seicer | talk | contribs 13:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Friedman[edit]
- Brad Friedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BIO, and perhaps autobio of freelance journalist--most edits come from IP addresses. The lead calls him a "self-described" etc. etc., and self-described is what all of the footnotes in the article are. Lots of wikipuffery, zero substantial coverage in independent third-party sources, and the desperation in linking to blog posts and the like suggests there is none to be had; I didn't find any, though it's hard searching through all the false hits to Brad Friedmans out there. THF (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, While there is an assertion of notability, it's reading more of a resume. In particular, only one reference seems to be independent, and it's more of minutes for a meeting rather than news coverage. The best notability assertion is with Brad Friedman: Blog Bio & Testimonials..., where it at least lists quotes from other people (but not reference them.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly the notability bar for "Creative professionals" is high and not reached by Friedman. Lot's of quotes from CourtTV don't make it a notable article. 12.3.62.130 (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate was originally closed as "delete" and reconsidered at deletion review. Result was to relist to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chick Bowen 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable, per WP:CREATIVE §hawnpoo 06:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Added sources not only easily satisfy the general notability guideline, which has primacy, but demonstrate that the subject is regarded as an important voting rights blogger who is often cited by his peers, hence WP:CREATIVE is satisfied. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You might want to identify the three or four cites that you feel best show notability: out of the first two I randomly spot-checked, one was a blog, and the other was WP:LARD that barely mentioned Friedman, which doesn't give me faith that all those footnotes are real. THF (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject is profiled in The Beacon-News (see text here). An LA Times newspaper blog, which counts as a reliable source per Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources, cites the subject as "the state's most persistent blogger-watchdog on the dangers of voting technology". [1] Rolling Stone cites the subject as having single-handedly kept a voting rights controversy alive via his "relentless blogging". The New York Times describes the subject as "perhaps the most dogged critic of electronic voting machine technology in the blogosphere" [2]. Another NYT article quotes the subject extensively on the subject of the role of bloggers as journalists. The subject is quoted in numerous other sources in the article and on the internet, satisfying one of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. If you don't like the sources I've picked out of the article, please do your own due diligence research on the dozens of other reliable sources available online. I recognize it's hard sorting through the false hits on that Gnews search, but as AfD nominator you've got to make a better effort. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Edits aren't going to make someone notable. WP's got a high standard here and it's very clearly not met. This doesn't appear to me to be a question of article quality. 71.178.193.134 (talk) 08:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits aren't necessary to make the subject notable. Notability is established by at least ten reliable sources in the article, plus I would estimate several dozen more in Gnews (that refer to this Brad Friedman). Baileypalblue (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I must disagree with you. I encourage you to read WP:CREATIVE. I don't believe "refer to" is a qualification.71.178.193.134 (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting from WP:CREATIVE: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." This criteria is clearly satisfied: the subject is heavily quoted by his peers in the media on his subject of expertise, and multiple cited quotes in the article demonstrate that he is regarded as an important figure. Quoting from Wikipedia:CREATIVE#Basic_criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Unless you can demonstrate that all but one of the dozens of independent reliable sources online that cover the subject are "trivial", this criteria establishes the subject's notability. Better make sure you know what the term "trivial" means in this context before attempting this. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Baileypalblue. WP:CREATIVE does appear met. Ancemy (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he does make regular appearances on KKGN radio 960 am in san francisco bay area. i think the article needs to be trimmed down, but he is notable, as he is heard and announced as an authority on a radio station that runs nationally syndicated shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete still not notable per guidelines. 166.199.58.8 (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I see lots of references here to reliable sources. I don't see any record of the nominator voicing their concerns on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Nominator cites wikipuffery as if it were one of the wikipedia's policies. It is not. It is an essay started by the nominator him or herself. Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appears to be enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability. DHowell (talk) 00:41, 11 March 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; looks like another snowy day in Chicago... (NAC) flaminglawyer 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kemonomimi[edit]
- Kemonomimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Purely original research and unverifiable by reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Farix (Talk) 23:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Delete' per nom.It also seems to contrast with List of Kemonomimi. Well, I know very few characters on the list and it contradicts there. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 23:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn for further examination. I vote too quickly. ~Itzjustdrama C ? 23:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs work, but there appear to be a couple sources. Edward321 (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is a stub, but it should easily pass verifiability.じんない 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a result of repeated article splits, a scholarly reference I once added about the origins of this character type has wandered over to List of catgirls. Combined with the first reading, it is clear that this is a subject of academic study and so suitable for an encyclopedia. The lists need sourcing, but I caution against wholesale pruning, as it the characters should be relatively easy to verify. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then where are the reliable sources? To me, it looks like someone's original research about what they think. And I highly doubt that Christopher Hart's and Gerry Poulos's talks about "Kemonomimi". They are both "how-to" books, one from the "how to draw manga" series and the other from a cosplay construction series, if the summary from Amazon is to be believed.[3] --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's verifiable by sourcing the anime and manga which it appears. I wonder did you actually try looking for sources before you nominated?じんない 06:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are trying to justify original research as a reliable source. Let me point out the statements.
- Kemonomimi (獣耳 or けものみみ, animal ears?) is an anime and manga terminology describing humanoid characters (most often girls) that possess animal-like features. Unlike kemono characters in traditional japanese [sic] art who appear primarily as animal-like hybrids, kemonomimi characters typically appear human except for added animal-like qualities, such as an added tail and ears(hence the name). Where is the reliable source that states that it is anime and manga terminology? And where is the reliable source that gives the definition?
- Often, these animal-like characteristics are part of the character's attire and can be removed at will. Where is the source for this statement?
- Many Animes [sic], Mangas [sic] and japanese [sic] Videogames include a kemonomimi character, often figuring the jester. Not only is the sentence using weasel words, but it to is unsourced and original research. There there any reliable source that backs up any part of the sentence?
- Often Catgirls and other Kemonomimi serve as mascots or advertising media for Anime Conventions, anime-related websites or other anime-related products Now I know for a fact that this sentence is purely original research, in part because I'm pretty sure the statement is false. But also, the only way one could come up with such a claim is if they looked at the mascots themselves.
- Many cosplayers take up a kemonomimi template, be it an original creation or a character from an existing anime, manga or video game. On top of it being derived from original reserach, the statement is also too broad. You see some catgirl cosplayers, but that's about it. Kemonomimi =/= just catgirls. Besides, we already have an article on catgirls. So there is no need for a second article.
- Some Japanese idols are known to show themselves with cat-ears and tail. The US-American Lisa Batey often wears cat-ears in her lifecast named Nekomimi Lisa. Another original research statement. And who is Lisa Batey?
- Non of these statements can be verified by looking at the anime and manga that contain "kemonomimi characters", as you suggested. --Farix (Talk) 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are individual statements, as opposed to the subject as a whole, which is what an AfD is about. In any case, as I said, in the Further Reading section there's sources right there. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've quoted the entire article piece by piece. If all of the pieces are unverifiable and original research, then so is the whole. And the "Further Reading" section aren't sources, they are how to guides for drawing and costuming. But they don't cover the subject itself.
- Do you have acess to either book yourself to make such a bold claim? Anyway, at the least this possibly might be redirected to Wiktionary as it is a commonly accepted term.じんない 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- here is at least 1 reliable source describing what they are. Since all it took for me to find this was 2 seconds of searching Anime News Network i really think you violated WP:BEFORE.じんない 23:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've quoted the entire article piece by piece. If all of the pieces are unverifiable and original research, then so is the whole. And the "Further Reading" section aren't sources, they are how to guides for drawing and costuming. But they don't cover the subject itself.
- Those are individual statements, as opposed to the subject as a whole, which is what an AfD is about. In any case, as I said, in the Further Reading section there's sources right there. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand per Quasirandom, seems to be easily verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It behoves you not to remove the AFD tag from an article that is still under discussion.[4] --Farix (Talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an accident on my part. I had accidentally closed the afd because I thought that the nominator had withdrawn, then the servers went down and I forgot to re-add the template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dream Focus 02:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This debate is not a vote; please provide your reasons as to why this article should be kept. AdjustShift (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as always. It looks fine to me, I see no reason to delete it. Its a stub, and should be judged as such. Dream Focus 10:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because the article is a stub and needs improvement is not a valid reason to delete. See also, Jinnai's comments. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Common sense dictates so. Anthropomorphism => Kemono => Kemonomimi. It's need works to avoid Original research and Verifiability issue But This is not Bullshit. Who didn't encounter that kind of characters in manga and anime ? I give you a point about how Kemono, Kemonomimi, Mecha Musume & Moe anthropomorphism should be organized or merged. It must be debated elsewhere as this an Afd discussion. --KrebMarkt 08:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a poor article, but that should never be the reason to delete an article. This article needs more references, and some work from someone who is familiar with the subject. AdjustShift (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok any volunteer to dig the the Ja article or the German article de:Kemonomimi ? The German article back itself with a ref to a German published book That book in Amazon.de --KrebMarkt 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese Wikipedia article has no sources and the German article also doesn't have any sources, but points to the German edition of Christopher Hart's How to Draw book for further reading. --Farix (Talk) 13:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese inwiki to English wiki equivalent of Utawarerumono Di Gi Charat Tokyo Mew Mew Fushigiboshi no Futagohime InuYasha Trickster Online as example of kemonomimi. We have also Category:Kemonomimi. I believe all the Anthropomorphism x Anime/manga related articles & categories need a big overhaul. --KrebMarkt 16:15, 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 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Apologies (album)[edit]
- No Apologies (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not remotely notable topic; page doesn't even try to establish notability Aurush kazeminitalk 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage found.--Michig (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as NN album from NN band. No sources and I'm not finding enough on-line. Would change if anyone can find reasonable sources. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 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 keep. and move to dab page, moving KMJC(AM) to this title. Seems the sensible way round the problem. Black Kite 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KMJC[edit]
- KMJC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
KMJC is the primary identity for the AM station in Mount Shasta, CA and has been the main ID since 1995. The other stations mentioned in the dab page haven't used those call letters for as many as 20 years and 2 stations don't even have articles written yet, so it's not likely anybody is gonna mistakenly think they're reaching the previous stations. Even still, former call signs are no more than secondary IDs. The Yacht club mentioned in the dab page is also red linked and at best is an acronym which definitely makes it a secondary ID for yet another non article. Per the Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC#Is_there_a_primary_topic.3F page, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. When a topic is the primary topic for more than one name the more common should be the title, and the less common should redirect to the article. Any article which has primary usage for its title and has other uses should have a disambiguation link at the top, and the disambiguation page should link back to the primary topic." I tried to speedy delete this dab page to move KMJC (AM) back to it's main ID, and still believe it should have been handled this way. The author who added the "hang on" tag offered no more discussion than "yes it is legitimate disambiguation page" and has made many contested page moves (see user talk page and reverted page moves) over the last couple of weeks without so much as a reason given in the edit summary. RobDe68 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the call letters were ever used by another station, and someone wants to search on them, this will lead them to the correct article (based on geography). Most radio station call letters have disambiguation pages associated with them (it's its own category here). That there are redlinks is irrelevant, and may be helpful in creating a page. I may be arguing this wrong, though - can an option be Create a KMJC (disambiguation page), assign current stations the titles of KMJC (AM) and KMJC (FM)?Vulture19 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If what you say were true then most television, FM and AM stations would require a disambiguation page for all the former uses of it's call sign. Per WP:WPRS naming convention "For articles on stations located in countries which do use government-issued call signs, the official call sign should be used." The only case the naming convention makes for disambiguation pages is if more than one station currently have the base call sign. It does mention acronyms but, as mentioned in my summary, a hatnote would suffice for the aforementioned yacht club (providing it's even notable or necessary, which is debatable itself since both links to the yacht clubs are red links). Former uses of the call sign can easily be covered in the primary ID's article (and I would only make a case for KKLC since that station was previously assigned the calls in this decade. The other 2 stations mentioned last had the calls in the 80's or early 90's and do not even have articles for the current call sign.) RobDe68 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KMJC (AM) Cheap to redirect there and if these other stations haven't used the same calls in years, a note in their article suffices just fine.Nate • (chatter) 07:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete and restore the current KMJC (AM) to KMJC. There is no competition for primary usage here - a hatnote will suffice. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move KMJC (AM) to KMJC and create a disambiguation page at KMJC (disambiguation) for the other articles. Since the other radio stations have different callsigns, the one that is currently called KMJC should occupy this article title. A mention of the other stations at KMJC (disambiguation) should suffice. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the current article to KMJC (disambiguation), then move KMJC (AM) to KMJC. The station currently using these call letters is clearly the primary topic and should be at the non-disambiguated title. However, I'm not convinced there's no reason to keep the disambiguation page somewhere, since other stations did use these call letters in the past. There are too many ex-KMJC stations for a hatnote IMO. BryanG (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move per above and per WP:DISAMBIG#Is there a primary topic? -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Four articles is clearly enough for a disambiguation page, so either keep, or move to KMJC (disambiguation) and put a hatnote on KMJC (AM) and move it to KMJC. Whether to do this should be according to consensus. For determining the primary use of the term "KMJC" I provide the following metrics:
- Internal references: 15 mainspace pages mention "KMJC". Of these, 1 is the dab page and 4 are the station articles being disambiguated; of the rest, 6 refer to the current AM station, 3 refer to both the AM station and the former FM sister station, one refers to the El Cajon station, and none refer to the Iowa station. This weighs in favor of moving this dab page and the primary topic being the current AM station.
- Google News Archive hits: 7 hits are about the sale of the Mt. Shasta AM and FM stations, 3 are about the El Cajon (San Diego) station, 4 are about the Iowa station, and one I think is a typo of KJMC. There were several false OCR hits, and several apparent references to the yacht club in Dutch. This might barely weigh in favor of the primary topic being the current AM station, but note the search turned up no news articles about the Mt. Shasta AM station exclusively.
- Years that the call sign was used: KMJC(AM) in El Cajon from 1972 to 1990 (at least 17 years); KMJC-FM in Clinton, IA from 1989 to 1990 and KMJC(FM) until 1993 (together over 3 years); KMJC-FM in Mt. Shasta from 1995 to 2006 (over 10 years); and KMJC(AM) in Mt. Shasta from 1995 to present (over 13 years). El Cajon had the call letters the longest, but the current station is in Mt. Shasta and could potentially be around longer. This is a toss-up between the having the dab page at KMJC (because the San Diego station has a lot of history with those call letters so could almost be a primary topic), and having the Mt. Shasta AM station at KMJC (becuase it is the current station and could potentially be around longer than the San Diego station).
- The only sources for the yacht club I found were in Dutch or German, and I am not clear on whether the references are more than trivial or if the sources are reliable. I found no reference to it in the German Wikipedia, and only one reference to it in the Dutch Wikipedia at w:nl:Willem Jan Kruys, where it is spelled out and not abbreviated. Neither the Royal Netherlands Navy article, nor it's Dutch or German counterparts, mention the yacht club. I conclude from this that it may not notable enough for an abbreviation disambiguation. DHowell (talk) 00:34, 24 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) Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transcriber[edit]
- Transcriber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software. Searching for more sources is difficult because there are multiple pieces of software named Transcriber. The Transcriber in Windows Mobile gets more notability hits than this, as does similar software in Palm OS. This linguistic aid software does not pass WP:N or WP:V.Miami33139 (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong or speedy keep. The random nominations by this editor are simply bad faith efforts to delete all stub articles about audio software, for reasons apparent only to him. I added to the article references to several academic articles about this widely used and well established software. LotLE×talk 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for some references, but please stop attacking me and accusing me of bad faith. I'd suggest to anyone looking at the sources to actually read them and consider whether they are reliable sources to determine notability or minor niche sources before deciding to keep based on them. Just because software exists does not make it notable. Miami33139 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I like academic journals as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure that every academic software package should have a page. Papers written about that software by those that wrote it are acceptable as they are (in this case) peer reviewed. But I find the indepencent nature of the sources questionable. If I knew where to merge, I'd suggest such a thing. But I don't, so keep. Hobit (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability inferred by the scientific articles. --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:44, 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 Deleted. While not a valid G3, it is a valid G4. WilyD 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Dillon-Robinson[edit]
- Rebecca Dillon-Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is a WP:HOAX. This person is not listed at Premier Model Management. The references provided for IMDb, Allmovie.com and TV.com are false. A google search finds zero references except for a student at a girl's boarding school. This article was A7 speedied last year and Afd'd in October. Page should be deleted and SALTED as persistent vandalism if not a possible BLP violation. — CactusWriter | needles 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Looks like good negative research - let's get it out of our encyclopedia, now! Brianyoumans (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt WP:CSD#G3 - blatant hoax/misinformation, so tagged. Could also be G4, repost of deleted material - take your pick. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 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 00:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mall Day (Movie)[edit]
- Mall Day (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod - non-notable film project. Casting and location scouting are thus far incomplete and the project has yet to commence principal photography.
PerWP:NFF "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles … Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". pablohablo. 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable per nom. and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Three short sections of which none are referenced. Would support stubbing if it was more notable. →Dyl@n620 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Think about it a lot of low-budget productions have wikipedia pages. There is nothing wrong with a film being on there and a Imdb page is coming but it takes 2 weeks to get on imdb. And MTI Video will sell it and Casting is coming.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.77.96 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)— 69.242.77.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - sorry, but you should read WP:NF, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOHARM. An IMDb entry is not enough, because you can post it yourself - Wikipedia needs reliable, independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per the article filming will not start until March 2009, thus it fails WP:NFF. Baileypalblue (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf we have a RS that says that filming will begin next month (which will make it meet inclusion requirements) we should keep it for now as we aren't a bureaucracy and process for process's sake can be disruptive. No objection to a renom if it isn't filming my March. Hobit (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but we don't have a reliable source that says filming will start next month; in fact we don't have any source at all, except the authors, to indicate that there is anything here but two lads with a camera and an idea that they would like to do a film. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This Movie is a low-budget direct to DVD movie if it will sell then i support it being on the site. P.S. This movie will probaly get it's earn as a "Major Motion Picture" but that doesn't mean anything lots of low-budget productions get the "Major Motion Picture" title to drag in costumers. I support keeping this movie up on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.77.96 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 21 February 2009
- Delete there's no sources writing about this film that would indicate notabilty -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 03:00, 24 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
House of Huenergardt[edit]
- House of Huenergardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Some sort of family claiming to be a noble house. It doesn't appear to have held any nobiliary title or land ever. I couldn't find any source, no history books, nothing. Prod was removed by the creator. Related to an apparently non-notable political party, with non-notable not-credible-at-all pretensions to speak in the name of the inhabitants of a disappeared Sovietic Republic, see old version of "Volgaland".
The removed prod said it very clearly: "Article lacks any merit. Searches for verifiable references or reliable sources [5], [6], [7] find nothing but facebook and similar pages or WP mirrors" Enric Naval (talk) 22:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I placed the original PROD that was declined by the article's creator. They were then asked for references and given time to provide them, but none has been forthcoming. As stated, there is no significant coverage or reliable sourcing for this article. — CactusWriter | needles 22:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Something invented at the local Wolgadeutschenverein one night is generally not suitable for a Wikipedia article. Admittedly, it does appear to be really invented, as opposed to a hoax for Wikipedia purposes. (A chicken farm? C'mon.) Choess (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it may or may not be a hoax but it definitely fails the policy of verifiability. - Whpq (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the original author, who has written all of the current content, has blanked the page twice. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the author blanks the page, then it should not be restored, but simply marked for a G7 speedy deletion. — CactusWriter | needles 22:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hum, this AFD has already been opened three days, should we leave it open two days more until the five days limit, or should an admin close it as WP:SNOW + WP:CSD#G7? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't bother an admin at this point. (The admin who reverted the blanking might have looked at the article history and not realized the creator was the sole contributor). At any rate, there is nothing critical here -- I see you have already done a nice job of rooting out this info from other articles. Nice job with that. This Afd will be closed in due course and that is fine with me. — CactusWriter | needles 09:03, 24 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 Richard Dawkins . The arguments against retention have the day, but a redirect seems best given the keep comments. MBisanz talk 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huxley Memorial Debate[edit]
- Huxley Memorial Debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable debate. As explained on the article's talk page for a while, there are no significant WP:RS to write an article about this. Though the audio from Richard Dawkins is here I don't see enough sources for a debate in memory of the 1860 Oxford evolution debate. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no in-depth coverage that would allow the article to develop beyond the bare-bones of who/where/what-topic/what-score. Sole citation is problematic as (i) a GoogleBook search of it does not turn up mention of the name of this debate (though does appear to confirm that some such debate did take place) & (ii) a quote verifying its coverage has not been forthcoming. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: notable discussion. (1) Dawkins has the mp3 files on his website. (2) Richard Dawkins wikiarticle mentions that his previous experience debating creationists led him to the conclusion not to do so anymore. It seems that the Huxley Memorial Debate is one cornerstone for his decision. (3) John Durant, now the director of the MIT museum [8] wrote a book chapter about it, which is cited in the article, and which is reproduced on the AAAS website [9].Northfox (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the trouble is that the AAAS version gives no indication that the debate was called the "Huxley Memorial Debate", and does not in fact use the word "memorial" at all. Nor does the Dawkins website. This article's title in fact appears to be WP:OR. What we have in fact is an unnamed debate. Additionally, only the first three paragraphs in Durant's chapter appear to be about this debate (although quite a bit of these three paragraphs are also on the 1860 debate). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:comment: google for 'Huxley Memorial Debate' will give several hits. Since the Oxford Union has allegedly lost the debate minutes (as one of the websites found in the google search claims), we might need to listen to the mp3 files to get some clues for the proper name. Possible actions: (1) A disclaimer in the article could be added pointing to the unclear status of the official title (if Union debates have titles at all), and using the Huxley Memorial Debate title because it is used in many websites (including Dembski's). (2) chose a different title. But the title discussion and AfD are two different things. Northfox (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are insufficient, a WP:RS for the name is needed. "Listen[ing] to the mp3 files to get some clues for the proper name" = WP:OR. Without an official link to the original Huxley debate, the topic loses even more of what little claim to notability it had -- it essentially becomes just another debate between Scientists & Creationists -- of which there've been hundreds (many of them with equally prominent participants). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Northfox, if I understand you correctly, your evidence of notability consists of the mp3 files on Dawkins' website, a one-sentence mention in a wikipedia article, and a brief mention in John Durant's book. Only one of these sources (Durant) is reliable and independent of the subject (per Wikipedia:Notability) and he only mentions the debate briefly. Do you honestly think this constitutes "significant coverage"? Polemarchus (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep to avoid suppression of the topic. We need to allow writers to expose ideas that run counter to mainstream currents of thought. This does not violate NPOV by making the contrary ideas "equally valid" - it merely shows that they exist, which is a far cry from endorsing them. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's "suppression of the topic"? Do you have any WP:RS to make an article meet WP:V and WP:NOTE? BBiiis08 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's already a wealth of articles "show[ing] that [these ideas] exist" -- see Portal:Creationism for a list. An article that states little more than 'there was a debate, there was a topic, there were participants & there was a vote' does not "expose ideas", because it contains none of the ideas expounded in the debate. This is quite apart from the fact that your objection to deletion has no basis whatsoever in policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Wikipedia:Notability: this event doesn't appear to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". These sorts of debates are fairly common, and I don't see what makes this one special.
- (Also, this article appears to have been created as a coatrack for a manufactured controversy, which isn't documented in any reliable sources. The article is the subject of one of the lamest edit wars I've seen — who the hell cares how many people happened to show up at a university debate 23 years ago to vote for the motion?) Polemarchus (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note A link about it is here. I suspect the deletionists here are trying to suppress the existence of the debate on such spurious grounds as (1) it's not notable or (2) we aren't sure it happened. "The exchange between Huxley and Wilberforce at the Oxford meeting was part of this debate. It has received some notoriety and seems to have gathered about it such a great deal of folklore that it is difficult to know precisely what happened. One thing that seems certain is that it did not happen the way popular stories have it." Wikipedia ought to tell its readers what really happened, if it can - or give both sides of the story if there's a dispute. Isn't that what NPOV says? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: that link is to the site of a self-described "self-employed builder" -- ludicrously unreliable! Your 'suspicions' and continual wild claims of 'suppression' have no factual basis whatsoever. This debate has received neither "notoriety" nor non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Why are you wasting our time with this Ed? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Ed Poor: Ed, the passage you've quoted above (on the exchange between Huxley and Wilberforce) is about the 1860 Oxford evolution debate — not the 1986 Huxley Memorial Debate, which we're discussing here. I can understand how a person might get confused though: the website you're quoting from is awfully amateurish, and certainly not an appropriate source for a Wikipedia article. If this event is notable, you should have no problem finding a reliable, published source that discusses it. If all you can find is infantile, fringe websites, then it's not an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article. Polemarchus (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete. From what I can remember, Dawkins mentions this debate several times in The God Delusion, but I can't find any mention of it by others (apart from the usual Y.E.C. nutcases, of course). yandman 08:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are literally thousands of debates in college societies around the world every week; nothing seems to set this apart from any of the others. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There may not be sufficient RSs to support a stand alone article. However this is an important event about Richard Dawkins as it partially shaped his resolve not to debate. Merge this into the Dawkins article. Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An ordinary university debate, and there are no reliable sources that lend it any notability.--Sloane (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources to indicate why this debate is notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. EagleFan (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Eaglefan. AfDs are not votes, and so an opinion without substantiation will be ignored. If you believe the article should be kept, you should explain why. yandman 21:31, 25 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sundip Gorai[edit]
- Sundip Gorai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy. Apparent autobio. No verifiable evidence of notability in article, and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) doesn't turn up anything useful. Hqb (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is not notable enough to merit a mention in the article on Hexaware Technologies, the company he works for as Assistant Vice President [10]. No reliable source coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline. Baileypalblue (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I noticed buzzwords such as thought leader which is a common red flag. Also, I think there would at least be one reference even from an unreliable source (including his linkedin.com profile.) --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Unsourced and no secondary sources found. Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:49, 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 Absence of verifiable assertion of notability. Satisifies CSD A7. SoLando (Talk) 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Palms Beach Hotel and Resort[edit]
- Hollywood Palms Beach Hotel and Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable hotel. Searches for "Hollywood Palms Beach Hotel and Resort" using Google, Google News, and Google Books turn up no results whatsoever. As such, no reliable sources have been located that can establish that the subject is notable (or for that matter, whether or not it even exists). My PROD template was removed by the page's creator with no explanation. Unscented (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no indication of notability. PhilKnight (talk) 22:55, 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Final girl[edit]
- Final girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article exists solely to promote a nonnotable term by a single author. Author already has her own article, and this article should redirect to it or be completely deleted. The only references in this article are: an extremely brief mention in a book (fails the "nontrivial" part in establishing notability), an online website essay that fails WP:RS criteria, and another single page reference in a book (again, failing the "nontrivial" aspect). Site seems to exist so fans can make a list of horror films they like that have "final girls" -- which is original research, especially considering that the author who came up with the term says that the "final girl" doesn't have to be a girl or at the finale of the movie. Whole existence of article basically pushing the POV of this author as if the topic warrants special attention outside of just that one author's theory, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not seeing sourcing problems on the scale that DreamGuy implies, and if they were there then the solution would be to add more refs rather than delete. It's certainly a phenomens that's had a fair bit of discussion, and TBH I'm a bit suprised that Men, Women and Chain Saws itself doesn't have it's own entry. Artw (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We certainly should keep this article. The solution to a sourcing issue would be simply more sources and content. The article is about an important topic in horror films and feminist film theory. If anything, I'd like to see the article kept and greatly expanded upon. As to the list of films, I don't have a problem with it as long as it is kept trim, and used as a means of a jumping off point for further reading. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Basis of deletion claim that only one author uses the term is false. Check out Google Scholar Search--Larrybob (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncle G at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_featuring_a_final_girl also pointed to some sources. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would've been helpful to know before I started researching. Anyway, I think I added at least one of those sources on my own. I personally don't like the table, for reasons which Uncle G points out in the discussion you linked to, but I was just trying to establish notability for purposes of this AfD. Dancter (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I expected to see a bunch of WP:OR and I found a well-written and well-researched article. §FreeRangeFrog 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient sources in the article for the moment, and quite a few more available, as shown above. Another example of carelessness in nominating for deletion without actually checking for references.DGG (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reynold Humphries (a former film studies professor at the University of Lille, certainly qualified to comment on the matter) wrote that the final girl is "one of the central notions in contemporary theoretical approaches to the modern horror film." In addition to the several editors here and elsewhere vouching for its notability and the multiple references available (many of which are several pages long), I don't know what else one needs. Of course the article needs improvement, but deleting or redirecting to a short five-sentence stub article is not a helpful way to deal with it. Dancter (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Need I voice an opinion? ☺ It should be pretty clear from what I wrote in the other AFD discussion that I'm in agreement with 66.191.19.68 on the subject of expanding this article to include more than just Clover's views. Applause to Dancter for working on it. Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to look up the Cornea book after discovering your comment in the other AfD, but don't have the same access to book sources that you do, so I'm glad that you added that to the article. Dancter (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find that surprising. From AFD discussions in the past I know that, for example, Google Books is censored in my part of the world compared to some other parts of the world, with other editors reporting search results that include things that I simply don't see from here. And I have no privileged access to libraries and suchlike. My experience is that I actually have less access to such things than many Wikipedia editors. Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to look up the Cornea book after discovering your comment in the other AfD, but don't have the same access to book sources that you do, so I'm glad that you added that to the article. Dancter (talk) 03:53, 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 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of prize-winners at St Peter's College, Auckland[edit]
- List of prize-winners at St Peter's College, Auckland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of award winners within a school. Most names appear to be linked to "list of St. Peter's alumni'. All sources are internal university publications. Might be speedy on the grounds of no assertion of notability material. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. Delete. DS (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- if there isn't a category of WP:NOT for "Wikipedia is not a repository for your institution's or organization's internal record-keeping," then there should be! J L G 4 1 0 4 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unremarkable & unnecessary entry for an encylopedia. -- Marek.69 talk 04:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deletion of interest to the 10,000 or so living alumni and relevant to background of the famous ones. Alumni do not have access to school's internal record-keeping. School has more pressing concerns.Rick570 (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So why doesn't somebody create an alumni web site for the school and list these prize-winners there? That seems a more appropriate venue for this sort of information than an encyclopedia. J L G 4 1 0 4 00:29, 24 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supernatural Rejectionist[edit]
- Supernatural Rejectionist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable neologism. The given references (number of google hits on an unidentical term) are unpersuasive. Can't find news/book sources that use the term. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A non-notable neologism, hoax or something made up in one day. There are no Ghits for "Supernatural Rejectionist". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NEO and/or WP:OR. Hqb (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above - judging by page creator's username, this is probably an attempt at self-publicity pablohablo. 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "The term was coined by Stephen Herron Buck on 2009-02-20" - a new term invented today is bound to fail WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. The author of that guideline saw this one coming: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." Just so. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and speedy close. This strikes me as a snowball or making a point. The author just seems to be testing the "made up one day" criterion for deletion. And one very specific, named day at that! J L G 4 1 0 4 02:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NEO and obviously made up one day!. -- Marek.69 talk 04:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and tagged as such. Rational: The article's author has a very similar username to the person that "invented" it, one of the auto-reverted references was a facebook page, and the two other links appear to be generic searches rather than attempts to prove notability. It's also a dictionary definition, and wouldn't hold a candle to existing terms such as agnostic or nontheist. --Sigma 7 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All true, but expect an admin to deny the CSD request since it doesn't fit within the narrow criteria. Savy users can game the CSD criteria and this is a good example of how to do so. Shadowjams (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's what happened. Shadowjams (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This indeed was a test. Thank you for proving my opinion that wiki is upstanding. I have lots of friends on Facebook that I debate with and they often negate wiki links that I provide as untrustworthy. So I have been asking them to participate in proving the notion one way or another. Thanks again. Stephen Herron Buck
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:RegentsPark per CSD A7. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nabil Rastani[edit]
- Nabil Rastani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy delete per A7, no indication of notability. This "young historian" was born in 1996 acording to the only source, which is a personal web page. Nominated CSD, but tag was deleted by an IP. Jomasecu talk contribs 20:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this is a recreation of a page that was already speedily deleted. Jomasecu talk contribs 20:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as likely hoax. Only evidence to back up these claims in subject's own website, find it very difficult to believe any book being written now is due for publication in 2017. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont thiny you should delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahshah39 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 17 April 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In it success[edit]
- In it success (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Rtphokie (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although you are correct, it is still a point of reference, and In-It Success is a term that is gaining great popularity in the area and for those who are unfamiliar with the term, this would be a great reference point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.8.54.235 (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any references for it? Those in the article do not support the definition the article puts forward. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is not a definition: cited sources don't refer to this phraseology, but to coincidences of "in" and "IT" next to one another. The construction of the phrase makes Googling for references very tough, but none have been offered and after a quick search I have found none. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Common usage or not, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is either non-notable, made up, or a hoax. There are no Ghits for "in it success" as far as I can tell. There are some results, but they are for the juxtaposition of "in" and IT (information technology) success. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In It Delete no common usage, and Wikipedia is still not a dictionary pablohablo. 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism not in regular use. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to just be local slang and Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary or even a dictionary at all. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 23:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment moved here from talk page This article should not be subject to deletion based on the public's misunderstanding of the term. In it success is something very important to many people - and not just people in the Mid-Michigan area. I currently reside in San Diego and was pleased to read about such a positive, motivating subject. In this age of tragedy and terror, seeing something so positive posted on this site made my day. Please, don't deprive others of this fantastic experience. 35.8.54.250 (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that 35.8.54.250 geolocates to the Michigan State University, as does 35.8.54.235 pablohablo. 22:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, almost everyone who has voted delete did so partly or wholly because Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definition. Secondly, whilst reading that page might have been a "fantastic experience" for you, that's not what an encyclopaedia is meant for. If you're so keen to provide others with the positive experience of reading a dictionary definition, you can either post it on Wikitionary if they'll accept it, or your own webpage if they don't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the whole business of "In this age of tragedy and terror, seeing something so positive posted on this site made my day. Please, don't deprive others of this fantastic experience." screams of WP:ILIKEIT. We have also have oodles of positive/upbeat articles like puppies, Sesame Street, Optimism, To Write Love on Her Arms and indie pop, which makes that argument pretty ridiculous. I mean, the article is still a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Try Urban Dictionary or Wiktionary instead. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, almost everyone who has voted delete did so partly or wholly because Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definition. Secondly, whilst reading that page might have been a "fantastic experience" for you, that's not what an encyclopaedia is meant for. If you're so keen to provide others with the positive experience of reading a dictionary definition, you can either post it on Wikitionary if they'll accept it, or your own webpage if they don't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:02, 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 withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Fawcett[edit]
- Taylor Fawcett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nonsense — Ched (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: The article's way sub-par, but the guy does appear to exist and to be in the show the article references. So the question's just whether he's notable enough for an article just now. Six episodes of a single TV show and no apparent substantial third-party discussion make me think not. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also NB it's slightly less nonsensical than it was when you tagged it for AFD, Ched - it had been vandalized at the time. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not nonsense, but an appearance on one sitcom that appears to have flopped big-time isn't enough for notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect To relevant TV series. Not enough (yet) for a full article, but there's no harm in pointing the page to a different place. TNXMan 20:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, forgot about that. Redirect.
- Withdraw, or redirect - article had multiple vandalism, by multiple IP's - Tnxman found real copy in history for me. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other really. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 wikt:various artists. Xclamation point 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Various artists[edit]
- Various artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was soft-redirected to Wiktionary back in September but undone. It is a sub-stub dicdef with no hope of expansion. I see no use in an article as it's a very much no-brainer definition. If soft-redirected again, I suggest a protected redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to soft-redirect, which is what I created it as, and protect. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Redirect and protect. This has already been decided in the previous AfD and no reasons have been given as to why this should be changed. (The template I used on Seventysomething is the one I prefer.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:03, 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 - Proposed article was already CSD A7 deleted, the creation of this article was an apparent accident. Kylu (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interfaith scriptural reading[edit]
- Interfaith scriptural reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears created to support Scriptural reasoning article: no obvious independent notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am open to whatever decision is made for this article. Not inclined to fight this one.
- The article was not created to "support" Scriptural Reasoning but on the contrary rather to establish the existence of a number of different practices of interfaith scriptural reading of which Scriptural Reasoning is just one (relatively small and unimportant part). In other words, Scriptural Reasoning is not so important, because there are a number of activities which are notable being reported independently in international press and media such as the Archbishop of Canterbury's Building Bridges Seminar -- international meetings across the Middle East and Europe and the USA. The Jewish-Christian-Muslim Conference and various other scholarly resources from different groups around the world which practice text-based dialogue between faiths -- all this is notable and needs coverage -- somewhere no Wikipedia.
- There is no article under the category of Interreligious Dialogue which addresses the large variety of practices of people of different faiths meeting togther to study their sacred scriptures. If you can identify another article which covers this area then please let me know, and the topic can be addressed there. But I can't see any.
- --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't this AfD refer to an article that contains nothing but an AfD tag? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Um, yes. That's because I TWINKLEd it a minute after it was speedied. I couldn't decide whether to restore it, or remove the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, blank page, move along, nothing to see here! pablohablo. 23:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete I just put an A3 tag on the page -- it should be gone shortly. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:23, 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 speedy delete as G3. ... discospinster talk 20:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Senorify[edit]
- Senorify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This looks like a WP:HOAX or WP:MADEUP. Only 4 Gsearch hits for the term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 More tags than article = kill it with fire. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:16, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scriptural reasoning[edit]
- Scriptural reasoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The term "scriptural reasoning" gets around 8,000 Google hits, many of which are not actually about this topic but simply occurrences of "scriptural" and "reasoning" together. The subject exists, it was promulgated in 1995 by the Society for Scriptural reasoning, but the article itself cites no real sources independent of that society, and is heavily WP:OWNed by user:scripturalreaosning, who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning". The article itself is an atrocious mess, as you'd expect given the WP:COI / WP:SPA issues (virtually every edit is a conflicted SPA or a Wikipedian trying to clean up after them and being resisted) combined with a religious topic, that is not really a surprise. It also reads as a mix of WP:OR and WP:HOWTO, with a liberal sprinkling of promotion over the top. I have no idea whether this can actually be rendered down to a decent article, but this certainly is not one, it looks like a job for Wikipedia:Delete the junk to me. The edit warring of the WP:SPA is enough of a problem even without his taking it off-wiki (http://www.scripturalreasoning.org.uk/statement.pdf). Whether this is redeemable with a rewrite and topic-ban for user:Scripturalreasoning or not, I can't really tell, because the user has polluted the article and the talk page to such an extent as to make it virtually impossible to view the article in a context separate from his tendentiousness and disruption. One editor on ANI described it as "very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way (akin to describing a tea-party and citing it to the Brewing Instructions on a teabag box)" - that sums it up perfectly. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning"
- That bit's not accurate; they're not claiming to own the term, just saying no-one can (a kind of Zen assertion of ownership). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete into a doorknob. I searched for refs myself (as well as those found on the page). "significant third party references" is the phrase; the references found are divided into 1) things that mention it in passing (not significant) 2) statements by involved organisations (not third party) and 3) things that mention it when discussing something else (not a valid reference). It is filled with WP:OR and (although they don't matter) the intentions of the editor in question call the validity of this into doubt all on its own (normally if something is "important" per wiki-guidelines it will be important enough for someone not associtated with the thing in question to write an article). At some point this may become a widely used term/process, and at that point we can have an article on it, a neutral, well-referenced article edited by independent and neutral people. But this is not that point and this is definitely not that article. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think it'd be redeemable if a few rigorous and fresh editors could get to it with the battleground aspects removed. JzG, presumably that Google was without quotes? With quotes, it gets 8900 hits, with 450+ Google Books hits of which the majority refer specifically to it as a theological approach (many also give enough preview access to consult as sources).
More or less as JzG says, it does have an insider-written flavour, with a lot of how-to exposition that rather goes beyond what the cited sources say. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- is heavily WP:OWNed by user:scripturalreaosning, who claims that his organisaiton are sole owners of the name "Scriptural Reasoning" -- where did I say that anywhere? No. I think this an mistaken identity on this one - you'll find it's the opposite (I am not associated with the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" which does claim a monopoly on Scriptural Reasoning - and it is the other usersThelongview Mahigton Laysha101 who are linked to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning). On the contrary, the whole point is that "Scriptural Reasoning" is NOT owned by anyone, and there should be Due Weight with respect to different SR groups, but there have been other editors who have made assertions about it being "invented and developed" by a single group -- the Society for Scriptural Reasoning - only. Any reference to other groups or traditions in SR has been deleted, all headings, references, etc to other groups have repeatedly been deleted. And a monopoly on use of the name claimed for this one organisation "Society for Scriptural Reasoning" only. Look at the edit history and the deleted sections.
- The subject exists, it was promulgated in 1995 by the Society for Scriptural reasoning, but the article itself cites no real sources independent of that society. Agreed entirely. This is in part due to editing deletions by other editors who are members or employed by the groups connected to the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning"
- with a liberal sprinkling of promotion over the top - Agreed entirely. My critique has been exactly that this article is being used as a promotional brochure for Scriptural Reasoning, exaggerated claims about its uniqueness and importance, and suppression of problems in the practice. SR is a minority activity and not especially innovative -- others have been doing virtually the same stuff for years under other names.
- is enough of a problem even without his taking it off-wiki - No. I did not take it off-Wiki. Colleagues received a phone call from the lead person of a national interfaith body complaining about the editing of the Wikipedia Scriptural Reasoning article -- the two organisations the Cambridge Inter Faith Programme and St Ethelburga's who are part of the Society for Scriptural Reasoning network are affiliate bodies of the organisation which rang and made the complaint. That is how it went off-wiki.
- "very much written from an insider perspective, and there's a lot of exposition that seems to be expand sourced statements in a loose OR way - Agreed entirely. The early sections on "Method" and "Key Features" are just that, and I didn't write them but written by other users connected to the Society for Scriptural Reasoning. I added the POV marker to that latter section, because the section appears to be promotional.
- Hope that clarifies. The article in my view has been promotion material for the Society for Scriptural Reasoning, claiming a monopoly or majority sharehold on the practice for one organisation, and exaggerating its importance relative to near identical types of work that hs been done by others for years.
- --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I did not take it off-Wiki.
- What may have happened previously is unclear, but anyone can read at Talk:Scriptural Reasoning#Scriptural Reasoning Society Trustees that you were ... proactive in recent communications with them:
- I have now notified the "Scriptural Reasoning Society" Trustees of some of the stuff that has been going on with recent editing ... I have told the Trustees ... I have therefore proposed to the Trustees ... etc
- This is still on the table at WP:COIN, and in the light of what looks a major COI, please could you follow WP:COI guidelines and not use this AFD as a venue for further soapboxing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Yes, the page needs drastic cleaning, but that's never rationale to delete, it's rationale to improve. I am finding a number of good sources, with minimal effort. I am finding sources, like: [11], [12], and [13] that are written specifically about this topic. There are countless sources that mention it in broader contexts too. Cazort (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cazort the articles turned up by your search by David Ford and Peter Ochs are from founders of the "Society for Scriptural Reasoning". While there is prolific material published by this same group, I think the point being made above is the absence of much third party analysis other than from this small group, other than promotional news interviews, etc. If you scan the reference list of Scriptural Reasoning there is a superabundance of articles by the same group of authors. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Point proven. Moving on.... Guy (Help!) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article sucks, but we have at least one book on the subject by a major scholar in Biblical hermeneutics published by a major academic publisher - David F. Ford, "An Interfaith Wisdom: Scriptural Reasoning between Jews, Christians and Muslims" in David F. Ford and C.C. Pecknold, The Promise of Scriptural Reasoning (Malden, MA / Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006) that alone means an article is possible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As noted by the creator of this article, sources which are not third party do not count. The book you just described, as noted by the creator, is obviously affiliated with the subject matter, and therefore does not count as a source, or grounds for notability.— Dædαlus Contribs 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, as I mentioned above, there are plenty of books findable not by David Ford. In addition, Ford's books are real books published by academic presses like Oxford University Press, not Lulu-published stuff to be dismissed as sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete No unaffiliated sources provided means no notability.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bullshit. A number of notable scholars start using a term, and stating what they mean by it. They are published in mainstream academic series, which publish only serious scholarship. There is absolutely no reason for us not to record that these people are using the term, and what they define it to mean. All of that can be done neutrally and verifiably. If we don't have any critical assessment, then the article need not give any assessment, it can stick to self description of the methodology. Seriously, anyone arguing otherwise knows nothing about hermeneutics as a discipline. There is absolutely no basis in policy to delete this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and work on NPOV. this is essentially a pawn in dispute between two groups about which if either of them own the term. This is settled by editing by some neutral people, not by deleting. If after a good effort by unaffiliated editors it is concluded to be impossible to find actual sources, that's another matter--but the present contentious state of the article does not mean we should delete it to save the trouble. DGG (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep A Google News search appears to support the article's merits: [14]. This type of article would benefit from a rewrite. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep EagleFan (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Goggle Books and above sources and send to WP:CLEANUP to address POV and COI. Since the article can be corrected to meet standards, it should be. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete all original research and no reliable sources the discuss the original research as stitched into this article? Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Original research with no sources. --Sloane (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's and Ironholds' well-reasoned analysis of the available non-sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, synthesis of poor sources at best. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 25 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commonware[edit]
- Commonware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable web content. Article lacks third party sources displaying noability and I was unable to find any in a search. This article was deleted at AFD two years ago but it appears that it was recreated shortly after without any one noticing. The tone of the article in general is marketspeak: "To reach for global interoperability, the software helps project leaders collaborate internally and externally with project leaders of business partners industry-wide, so that applications can be built that interoperate across all enterprises involved." MrOllie (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[The Commonware article is an educational and innovational guide to share methods to enhance industry-wide concepts. There are many articles on Wikipedia that contain market speak terms, but are still very informative for readers to exchange knowledge and share information. Mr. Ollie forgets what the purpose of Wikipedia is to compose articles that are informative and helpful for the reader's benefit. (This article should not be deleted or removed)] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda overton (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So basically you're saying WP:USEFUL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Linda overton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — no edits outside this afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- when it becomes a notable company, no prejudice against its recreation. The marketspeak (in both the article and Ms. Overton's defense of the article here) should not be relevant, although it is paradigmatic of the unique synergy between facilitators and deliverables in both local and global contexts. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{Note: Do not delete this Commonware article on Business Process Interoperability [BPI]. Commonware appears to be an innovative methodology and tool to resolve present day technological operational issues. Why would anyone want to delete an article about innovative research and development? [Future Thinker].}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda overton (talk • contribs)
- Note: Saying the same argument over and over again doesn't make you right. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts, and please don't put everything in brackets. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found not a single mention in google news archive search. Seems not-notable to me. Cazort (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this looks like a marketing attempt for a non-notable software package. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obvious attempt at advertising. SkipSmith (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not-notable and written like a advertisement. Frozenevolution (talk) 12:04, 24 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 (G7 – author request) by Splash. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eklektikos Live[edit]
- Eklektikos Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does it comprise notable artists? For the most part, yes. Are there any reliable sources about this album? No. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree. I started this article a long time ago, during a time when I was less familiar with notability and reference requirements. While the album does indeed exist, it does not meet all article requirements. Feel free to delete. -Another Believer (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for G7 since no one else has edited the article outside of my tagging it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:49, 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 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Location Rentals[edit]
- Bravo Location Rentals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete appears to fail WP:CORP, reads like an advertisement, but seems little different than any other party supplies rental place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any suggestions would be appreciated for this article not to be deleted. Thank you talk
- Keep. Sourced, referenced, and seems to be a reasonably notable company in an albeit specialised field. I've removed a bit of PR fluff, but on the whole it seems to just be a neutral description of the company. (Someone spamming a product which solely serves a French-speaking area on the English Wikipedia seems to have missed one of the basic rules of spamming, anyway). "There are other companies which offer the same service and we don't have articles on those" – which, if I'm reading it right, is the thrust of the nomination – isn't a relevant argument; that could be said for virtually any company short of Virgin Galactic. What matters is whether this particular company does anything to distinguish itself from others offering the same service, and there seems to be enough coverage, awards etc cited (taking those on good faith – I haven't checked them out) to weakly accept that. – iridescent 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Iridescent. Majoreditor (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP by a good margin. Badly fails the key criteria: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Actually looking at the sources, one is a fairly brief tangential mention alongside other companies in a trade magazine [15], and the other is a silver award for their website design in a web award given to the websites of rental companies. Google news search for all time returns one hit, the previously mentioned special events mag. The Canadian Rental Service Magazine (no web link available) does not appear to be sufficiently independent - it is a promotion and membership organization for Canadian rental companies. I think coverage in a magazine of a niche organization where subject is a paying member fails to be an independent source. Phil153 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Phil153 says, this company misses WP:CORP. significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, none of the sources appear to be significant coverage, nor independant of the company if it pays membership. --Ged UK (talk) 08:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To be honest, this is a borderline speedy. We're all aware that trade magazines are neither indicators of notability nor reliable secondary sources, as they are not "independent of the subject". The same thing applies to awards from trade associations. yandman 16:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty blatant spam. --Sloane (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well I did this article, I'm jsut an employee of the place but seem to have a conflict of interest. I only thought it was a good place to show the history of the Company.
BruB (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As others have noted, this easily fails WP:CORP. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:20, 24 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 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bold for Delphi[edit]
- Bold for Delphi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete nothing to indicate that this software is notable by receiving significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability via coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:17, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SMEmail[edit]
- SMEmail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Written the same way as the previous two versions that were speedily deleted as advertising, therefore possibly written by the same author though the user name is different. Advertising, no evidence of notability. Since the new Sutton reference isn't online I can't verify that it mentions SMEmail but as a data point there are no hits for {sutton smemail} in Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar. Google Scholar doesn't return hits for SMEmail at all. Google Books returns a bunch, but then for the individual books it says the term isn't found, so something's wrong. One of the books is a travel guide! —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that this article had been through Afd only a few months ago. I'm just going to db-repost it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I just came across what an IP user wrote on the article's talk page about the foundational paper having been published by the IEEE. Does this now make the topic notable? The issue that the article is written like an ad remains, so if notability is now established it still needs to be sharply edited. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I tried to extract a fact or two out of that advertisement, which reduced the article to a couple of sentences. The question of notability remains. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be a research project with no established deployment; the paper is from only two months ago. Unlikely that this protocol has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can not find any sources to prove it is notable. It does seem like advertising. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See the [SMEmail Page http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4783292] on IEEEXplore to be sure about its notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.90.145.83 (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is every topic that has ever been presented at a conference notable? —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:13, 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, as not enough sources are present. Recreate if it gains significant coverage.--DFS454 (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not enough sources. Many topics have been deleted which have far more mention on internet/tech forums too, I want to point out. Cazort (talk) 20:26, 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. MBisanz talk 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. President (title)[edit]
- Mr. President (title) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely and totally unreferenced for over a year. Claims of original research unaddressed for over a year. Accuracy of facts in the article severely in question (has anyone called a first lady "Madam President" since the 18th century, if even then?). I don't see anything here worth keeping, and anything encyclopedic that could be said about the topic belongs in the President or President of the United States articles anyway. Powers T 18:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: previous discussion ended with no consensus to keep or to delete. Powers T 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to President of the United States. This is not a separate concept, but an alternate label, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The label belongs to the US President primarily, as a significant term (word/lexeme). - Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is one of those articles that assumes because a phrase is heard a lot on TV that it must be worthy of an encyclopedia article... when there just really isn't much encyclopedic content at all to be written. --Movingday29 (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the Mr. President dab page to at least preserve the long edit history. Otherwise, this can be easily mentioned in the President of the United States articles in a a short paragraph. MuZemike 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:38, 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, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepStrong keep (new sourcing makes it clearly a keeper). I clearly remember reading a rather long discussion about the title given to Pres. Washington and how there was a significant debate about what to call him (your highness, your honor, etc.). I can't find the source. It's got a significant history, but it needs sourcing. Sorry I can't help. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That sort of thing would belong in President of the United States, not here. Powers T 00:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There was a lengthy debate in the 1790s about what to call the president. This article should reflect that story. Very important. Kingturtle (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the best place for that, though? "Mr. President" is a title that applies to more people than just the President of the United States. Powers T 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, yes it is the best place for it. The George Washington article shouldn't go into lengthy details about it, nor should the POTUS article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this really the best place for that, though? "Mr. President" is a title that applies to more people than just the President of the United States. Powers T 16:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to President of the US. There's nothing salvagable here.--Sloane (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep RE: "Completely and totally unreferenced for over a year. Claims of original research unaddressed for over a year." Please see: WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL: "Essay 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." I find the article very interesting. Articles like this are what make Wikipedia unique. Ikip (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note a notification of this Afd was posted on: President_of_the_United_States Ikip (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we're using uppercase shortcuts, check out WP:INTERESTING. I should also point out that I did not nominate the article in an attempt to have it improved; I brought up the lack of referencing as evidence that the article could not be significantly improved, or at a minimum, was not likely to be so. Powers T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "I brought up the lack of referencing as evidence that the article could not be significantly improved, or at a minimum, was not likely to be so."
- And I just significantly improved the article. So the reason for deletion is moot, please close the nomination. I showed that the article can easily be referenced, if other editors will simply do it instead of demanding that others do it for them. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your efforts, but I disagree that the article was significantly improved, to the point of now meeting our inclusion criteria. I continue to assert that what little encyclopedic material is here belongs in other articles. Yet you continue to demand I withdraw my nomination. Powers T 11:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator this article has been extensively sourced and is not the original article which was put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much of it is the same; the references don't always support the sentences to which they are tied; and dubious claims remain, both sourced and not. And I still don't see anything that 1) is encyclopedic and well sourced, 2) doesn't belong in President or President of the United States, and 3) doesn't belong or doesn't already exist in First Lady. I still think deletion is the proper course of action here. Powers T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The title of the President of the United States is not just "a phrase is heard a lot on TV" but a historically important issue, as it helped to define the character of the office and distinguish it from monarchy. The increasing likeliness of a female president has renewed the issue as a topic of discussion and study. Yes, the article needed some work. Looks like it got at least part of what it needed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. Powers T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to back that up, the article makes it pretty clear that while the term is often used in the United States, it can be applied to any male head of state (or feminized as necessary) who is elected as a president. That said, I think this particular article tends more toward an expanded dic-def and could be easily worked into the existing President article (and thus the title could be redirected appropriately). 75.71.227.91 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry, wasn't logged in - Duncan1800 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I certainly don't deny that female presidents have been elected. But it hasn't yet happened in the country which -- unless I am mistaken -- coined the title, "Mr. President." Since the title was adopted elsewhere in the English-speaking world, and even influenced titles in other languages, you're right that I should be taking a broader view on the subject. And you're making the case for why we need such an article. Like other titles such as "Caesar" and "Khan," it is much more than just a word or a phrase with a definition: It is an independent political entity with it's own history and an international scope. --Shunpiker (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to back that up, the article makes it pretty clear that while the term is often used in the United States, it can be applied to any male head of state (or feminized as necessary) who is elected as a president. That said, I think this particular article tends more toward an expanded dic-def and could be easily worked into the existing President article (and thus the title could be redirected appropriately). 75.71.227.91 (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (sorry, wasn't logged in - Duncan1800 (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. Powers T 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. I welcome all editors to expand this article. If they need help learning how to add reference tags, please ask. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shunpiker just added 12 edits, adding an international aspect to the article, adding to my 19 edits and 8 references. Ikip (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't be condescending. My comment was addressed to Shunpiker's argument for keeping, which was entirely country-specific. Powers T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: This article is not country-specific. Female presidents have already been elected. I welcome all editors to expand this article. If they need help learning how to add reference tags, please ask. Ikip (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Weak and pointless stand-alone article. It should be deleted and re-directed to President of the United States, but as for its own Wiki-page... No way. --EveryDayJoe45 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UT
- Keep and immediately close this AfD. Wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE for improvement of any article. Placing one into AfD to force immediate improvement violates policy and guideline. The article should have been tagged for sources, not tossed into the flames. Placing one into AfD without prior due diligence to make sure it could not be properly sourced also violates policy and guideline. Placing one into AfD that a nom KNOWS can be propely sourced violates policy and guideline. If a merge or redirect need be discussed, the article's talk page is the place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Claiming that I KNOW (in capital letters no less) that the article can be properly sourced is not true at all. I know no such thing. And "lack of sourcing" is not the only valid deletion criterion anyway. I still feel that any valid content that could appear in an article with this title actually belongs in different articles entirely. I'm getting quite tired of being accused of violating policies in this AfD. What in the world is going on here? Powers T 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not redirect to any US-relates article, per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is worthy of "stand alone" status per supporters above. And, if for no other reason than as a courtesy to Wikipedia users. We can not begin to know what brings them to the Internet Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) added comment: Even the article talk page has interesting, informative and valuable insights that would be completely smothered if included in a President article.--Buster7 (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has improved significantly since the nomination, but even before those improvements there wasn't a valid reason to nominate it for deletion (WP:BEFORE appears to have been disregarded). The article is valuable, its presence is not disruptive (unlike spurious AfDs), and no compelling reasons for removal have been presented. – 74 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic is encyclopedic, regardless of issues with references. Articles should only be deleted if the topic is unworthy, not if the content is poor. — Reinyday, 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Nomination proposes a merger and so AFD is not the correct process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 25 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 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of lawyers[edit]
- List of lawyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Listcruft, should be a category Nerfari (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is better handled as a category as the list of lawyers would be too large. WP is not the bar association membership directory. WP:NOT#DIR. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, use appropriate subcategories of Category:Lawyers by type (and (Category:Fictional lawyers) instead. I suggest that any editors of the article who don't want to lose the information get started on that now, prior to deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this is better handled as a category. -J04n (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is what categories are for. THF (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Entirely too broad for a list - what encyclopedic usage would such a directory have? Not to mention the size, etc. of the list. Naturally, the members should be placed in Category:Lawyers or a subcat before deletion (if they aren't already). --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don;'t see why this to too broad--if it is too large, the solution would be to divide it, not eliminate it. For example, we should divide out fictional lawyers. By "lawyers" is meant. as usual for all such topics,, lawyers notable enough to have WP articles or to be obviously qualified for them (major elected officials, etc.). The list can contain additional information, such as dates and locations.DGG (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A good example of where we should be using a category, not a list. dougweller (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before it starts sporting cruft like dates and locations, which are better found in the respective articles. Compare list of physicians or the French version of this list to see where we could be heading if this isn't nipped in the bud. Benefix (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list is wayyyy too broad and should be a category anyways. Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this looks like a good opportunity to get rid of list of physicians at the same time, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of physicians . Benefix (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it can be split but there is no need to delete since it serves a useful purpose. It is not anything like a "bar association membership directory" as the Carlos said. Malick78 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,clean up, as it is far too broad for usefulness, especially the fictional attorneys. No problem with a List and a Cat, too. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC) After reviewing this and the List of physicians, I see no reason for deletion of this one; clean up will do. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per the stand-alone list guideline and the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Should be a category" is not a valid reason to delete a list. As currently organized it is far more useful than the category, which due to limitations in the software is far more difficult to navigate. If the list were to expand to become too large, then it should be split into sub-lists, as recommended by the guidelines. Deletion of this list is not helpful. DHowell (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SALAT. Interesting that I'm citing the same policy as the user above me who wants to keep the article. Where I'm coming from is the section that reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories." A list of lawyers is way too broad and an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is much better in a category because nothing binds them together. A list of defense lawyers or a list of law specialists in the field of civil rights, or something of the like would be acceptable, but "lawyers" is too encompassing for a list. Themfromspace (talk) 05:22, 24 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 Nord. (and I fixed the one link still pointing to this) Black Kite 20:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NORD (disambiguation)[edit]
- NORD (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
For whatever bizarre reason the prod i put on this uneeded disambiguation page with only one entry was contested. neon white talk 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- You seem to have removed all the other things listed on the disambiguation page before bringing it here, making it look like the page only had one entry. Even if you think the page is unneeded because all but one entry shouldn't have been present, deleting the other entries before listing on AFD seems inappropriate. Also, this seems to mainly be a disagreement between you and another user over whether a page with "(disambiguation)" in the title can be a redirect. Though I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on that, it would have made more sense to me to let that user's edit stand and then bring the page to Redirects for discussion. The page Nord to which he was trying to redirect is currently a much more complete disambiguation page for this term, so it makes more sense to redirect to that than to keep the page as a redundant disambiguation page. However, I don't think "NORD (disambiguation)" is a likely search term, so I agree that the page should be deleted. I just disagree with how you went about doing this. Calathan (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Looking at the edit history, I find that the "bizarre reason" was, in actual fact, clearly stated several times: "this was MERGED to Nord" "GFDL history requires keep". The editor without an account was quite right. Since content was, indeed, merged, the GFDL requires that it's authorship be retained in the edit history. The truly bizzare thing is quite why you are so desperate that this article be deleted, to the extent that you will even edit war over Proposed Deletion tags. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox, and one should not become so obsessed with deletion nominations that one forgets everything else. Redirects are cheap. And editors without accounts are not vandals acting in bad faith for "bizarre reasons". Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was not merged at any point with the article NORD, it was moved to its current name allow the creation of the NORD article which is completely different to a merge. The other entries were all either red links or unrelated terms if you want to restore them do so. Redirecting a term with is not searchable and keeping a pointless page is uttlerly illogical. Either disambiguation is needed or it isn't and if it isn't then no page is needed. It's really a simple black and white issue. To be honest i take offense to your tone here and think you should improve it. I only reverted the redirect once when it was unclear why it had been redirected because, as i pointed out, the pages were not in fact merged. Obsessing over trying to keep a page with no purpose as a redirect is 'bizarre' regardless of what reasons were eventually given. --neon white talk 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was merged with Nord (not NORD), as Uncle G pointed out. If you look at the links Ungle G provided, you will see that the user who changed NORD (disambiguation) to a redirect did in fact merge the content from that article into Nord. Under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which Wikipedia uses, when two documents are merged, the history of both documents must be retained. We therefore are not allowed to just delete the page, which would also delete the history. It doesn't matter than no one is going to search for "NORD (disambiguation)". The license Wikipedia used means we must keep the history somewhere. As I suggested above though, it might be possible if you really don't want a page at NORD (disambiguation), to delete the redirect currently at NORD (in all caps), move NORD (disambiguation) to NORD, and then make the page into a redirect to Nord (not in all caps). I don't think that is actually worth the effort, but it would probably solve your complaint of having NORD (disambiguation) exist as a redirect. Calathan (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not merged with nord but NORD when i proposed deletion and was unaware of the nord page. A merged with nord is correct but to keep this article as a redirect still makes little practical sense. Disambiguation pages aren't really the same as article (navigation not content) and i don't believe the same guidelines necessarily apply. It's not a huge issue but i'm certain i've seen these deleted before for the reasons i've stated. --neon white talk 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- first revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination; second revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination; third revert to reinstated contested Proposed Deletion nomination. This must be some new and idiosyncratic definition of "once". Uncle G (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was merged with Nord (not NORD), as Uncle G pointed out. If you look at the links Ungle G provided, you will see that the user who changed NORD (disambiguation) to a redirect did in fact merge the content from that article into Nord. Under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, which Wikipedia uses, when two documents are merged, the history of both documents must be retained. We therefore are not allowed to just delete the page, which would also delete the history. It doesn't matter than no one is going to search for "NORD (disambiguation)". The license Wikipedia used means we must keep the history somewhere. As I suggested above though, it might be possible if you really don't want a page at NORD (disambiguation), to delete the redirect currently at NORD (in all caps), move NORD (disambiguation) to NORD, and then make the page into a redirect to Nord (not in all caps). I don't think that is actually worth the effort, but it would probably solve your complaint of having NORD (disambiguation) exist as a redirect. Calathan (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was not merged at any point with the article NORD, it was moved to its current name allow the creation of the NORD article which is completely different to a merge. The other entries were all either red links or unrelated terms if you want to restore them do so. Redirecting a term with is not searchable and keeping a pointless page is uttlerly illogical. Either disambiguation is needed or it isn't and if it isn't then no page is needed. It's really a simple black and white issue. To be honest i take offense to your tone here and think you should improve it. I only reverted the redirect once when it was unclear why it had been redirected because, as i pointed out, the pages were not in fact merged. Obsessing over trying to keep a page with no purpose as a redirect is 'bizarre' regardless of what reasons were eventually given. --neon white talk 20:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, perfectly sensible title. Nord should be merged into this and then made into a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the naming conventions for disambiguation pages, this disambiguation page should be at the name Nord, since there is no primary topic at that name. Even if there was a primary topic, "Nord (disambiguation)" would be preferred over "NORD (disambiguation)". Calathan (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Didn't notice that. In which case Nord (disambiguation) should be the title of the disambig page. IMHO, Nord (department) is the primary topic. Mjroots (talk) 09:21, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems[edit]
- University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a glorified non-free image gallery. There are major image use issues here, and if all of the non-free images were removed, what would be left? There are no cited independent sources. The notability of the university's many seals is not established. Wikipedia is not a guide to UST seals, nor a place to have non-free image galleries. Andrew c [talk] 16:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – this is what Commons is for. MuZemike 21:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If ever free images were used in the article, would it make it notable enough? Starczamora (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The images are not what makes it notable or not. We turn to independent sourcing to establish notability, per WP:N. My point was that even if we took away all the non-free images to solve that problem, what would be left? We have no sources, no commentary, and no evidence that this is a notable, encyclopedic topic. -Andrew c [talk] 16:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Per consensus. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Worf Music Awards[edit]
- 2007 Worf Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- 2008 Worf Music Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only source seems to be a blog. Violates WP:MADEUP AndrewHowse (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC
- Delete - I can find no source indicating that this award exists other than the blogger site. It appears to be made up by the editor, who also has created pages for the 2002-2006 awards (which suffer from the same obvious problems). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvr725 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Note that there are actually a bunch of these:
They're all currently PRODed. I would suggest not including them here unless the PROD is contested for some reason, which I doubt will happen. Obviously these all fail any and all inclusion guidelines I can come up with. §FreeRangeFrog 18:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete quickly per WP:NFT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia's not for listings of obscure music awards that nobody's ever heard of. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sounds like they were made up and with vague voting criteria (text messaging barely existed in 2002, for instance). Please also check through all the what-links-here if this is deleted; Colbie Caillat had an entire section devoted to this which I removed. Nate • (chatter) 08:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment also watch out for the three accounts User:Bryan2310, User:Worf music and User:Worf music awards, clear socking might ensue here. Nate • (chatter) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emphatic delete - clearly this is non-notable... provided that it truly exists in the first place. There's no coverage by reliable sources - and, no, blogs and personal pages don't count. It should be pointed out that Worf Music Awards was speedily deleted 4 December 2008 as CSD A7, and a claim can be made that all of the articles about the annual "awards" are dependent on the deleted article (CSD G8?). B.Wind (talk) 18:31, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial noise[edit]
- Artificial noise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable topic. this is not suitable for an article. original research/neologism. no references. no citations. no sources. unref banner there for nearly a year with no improvements. very few articles link here. no external links. only one category. Troyster87 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - Rather than flagging for deletion immediately, consider searching for citations and verifying that the article has no references. I added a couple for you, so this article now has references and can be considered Notable. It's likely more could be added with a minor amount of effort. That said, this article should probably be renamed to something like Noise_(Sports) instead of Artificial Noise. Crickel (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While largely original research at the moment, this is hardly a non-notable topic. There have been games where the use of a whistle or other noisemaker by the crowd has influenced gameplay (don't have a reference handy but Yahoo had one such instance in basketball on their home page a few weeks ago). I do support the renaming of the article to Noise (sports) or Artificial noise (sports) or Crowd noise (sports) etc. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Considerable number of potential references, as shown by those already added. The rename can be discussed subsequently. DGG (talk) 01:56, 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 Nomination Withdrawn (keep). (non-admin close) – 74 19:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of knowledge base management software[edit]
- Comparison of knowledge base management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I nominated this article for deletion on the following grounds:
- The article is an assessment of a limited number of software tools by the originating editor and is clearly OR
- There are thousands of knowledge management software package at best the article could be "comparison of knowledge management software packages considered by editor XY's company" which is not really a WIkipedia function.
--Snowded (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've studied Wikipedia rules and examined similar articles and I consider that this article has the right to stay. I will prove my sight of view:
- 1. About "No original research". My article doesn't contain my opinion; there are no arguments for or against something. Article doesn't contain facts that are not proved by publications on corresponding resources. Technical information, shown in tables, is accessible and can be checked on websites. Links to these websites are shown in the first row of each table.
- 2. I'll give you an example of comparison article: Comparison of issue tracking systems. Here is the link to one of the first versions of that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems&oldid=53029615
- You can see that Comparison of knowledge management software does not differ from analogous articles and can be a perfect base for future development. I agree that many KB systems are not listed here, but we should start from something. And, as experience shows, everybody starts so.
- 3. Knowledge management software is a huge stratum that is not described in Wikipedia anyhow. My initiative to add this article is primarily due to the lack of information in the encyclopedia, which I have hitherto considered comprehensive. I'm sure that this is a worthy contribution to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_comparisons and to Wikipedia in whole.
- PS. I understand that I'm just a newbie here. Taking into account your overwhelming experience, please advice how can I change or extend the article, to get it matching Wikipedia rules.
- --Andygray.yo (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is neither representative or comprehensive. The sheer volume of KM software is numbered in thousands and is constantly changing so its not a matter of starting somewhere, the ambition of the page is not realisable (it has been attempted by several journals by the way. IBM's Institute of Knowledge Management had a large team working on the subject for a year and only partially touched the field and that was the best part of a decade ago, the number has expanded since.
- While "issue tracking" is easy to define, there is no agreed definition on what counts as KM software. Here you have made a limited selection of information and document management systems. The dominant KM systems (Sharepoint) for example are not in the list. IBM's strategy of creating an architecture rather than a product would not even fit into the table. How would you fit social computing into this list? Its a major part of KM and none of its features are listed.
- Comparison tables are always contentious, what you include and which boxes you tick is a matter judgement. The features you have chosen to include or not include as column headings are your opinion and does not represent the needs of the field as a whole.
- My suggestion would be that you create a list of documentation management systems (which is what this is) in a sandpit and try and find cited material that would back up the evaluation criteria. You might look at Gartner or similar sources for that.
- --Snowded (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you explain your opinion in details, I agree with your initial conclusion.
- However, let me make a suggestion. It may become a good compromise. When you mentioned Sharepoint, I've understood that I've positioned this article incorrectly. Now I see that recognized leaders of KM software were not mentioned in the article. However, if you look at information that can be find in google http://www.google.com.ua/search?rlz=1C1CHMB_uk___UA311&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=knowledge+management+software or Dmoz http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Knowledge_Management/Software/ you will see that classical integrated applications for knowledge management is the other niche.
- All products listed in the article position themselves as knowledge management software. And I know it for sure, that such positioning catches on with the market.
- Thereupon I want to suggest renaming this article to Comparison of _web_ knowledge management software or taking another, more appropriate name. As I have studied this subject field, this niche doesn't contain thousands of products, but slightly more than sixty. That's why my suggested article can cover the whole niche shortly.
- About table fields' choice – good criteria can be gathered from the Document Management Software article. Although mentioned products do not belong to DM software, but used for knowledge management, comparison criteria looks objective as a whole.
- --Andygray.yo (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some years ago everyone with an IM product moved to calling it KM. I think if you can list the 60 products as an action list at the front and find a new name then I would happily withdraw the nomination for deletion. I am not sure about "web based knowledge management". The list looks like document management to me, but open to ideas. --Snowded (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think I can add to this list all products of this class that are available on the market. This will be correct.
- About new name. These applications do not belong to Document Management System class because they do not handle directly with documents. All information (MS Words documents, PDF, etc) is brought to inner application format and is saved to the database. I have an idea! Most applications of this class position themselves not as "knowledge management software", but as "knowledge base management". I.e. management of the information that is stored in the knowledge base, which format can be changed from application to application.
- How do you think, does "Knowledge Base Management Software" or "Web based Knowledge Base Management Software" describe precisely enough the niche for products we discuss? --Andygray.yo (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⬅ Knowledge Base Management Software does it for me. I suggest you just move it now. Would any monitoring admin close this AfD? --Snowded (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for your advices --Andygray.yo (talk) 14:24, 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 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fanatik J[edit]
- Fanatik J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I have no direct opinion on the notability of the article's subject, but it has been tagged for notability since April 2008. This producer has a loose connection to a notable performer and album, but he doesn't seem to have worked on anything since 2005. I have no idea if this person is actually notable enough. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 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, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Redirect to alternative page will be placed instead Fritzpoll (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heckler & Koch G77[edit]
- Heckler & Koch G77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No refrences, citations etc. Could not verify existence anywhere. Koalorka (talk) 03:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The G77 doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere outside of this article (hoax?). It should be deleted for lack of notability and/or verifiability. decltype 20:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this gun was real it would be on hkpro.com. De728631 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it is blatant enought to speedy it. It may well be a hoax, but by long standing precedent we do not speedy those, until they cross the line into vandalism. (This is because individuals are notoriously bad at determining hoax from reality on their own, but groups are much better at it). Splash - tk 22:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a reference. RMHED. 22:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Wow, it did exist. I would say merge it into some other page with a bried mention since this is a VERY obscure prototype. Koalorka (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I'm not mistaken, this is actually a case where H&K wrote down 'G11' somewhere and someone misread it as 'G77'. Perhaps we should ask the company themselves? Crickel (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That must be it. We do have Heckler & Koch G11, an assault rifle which was in fact developed during that time but never made it beyond a prototype. A handwritten German 1 can actually easily be mistaken for an English 7! De728631 (talk) 12:54, 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. While the article urgently requires cleanup, original research is not in itself a reason for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Bravo (character)[edit]
- Johnny Bravo (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article contains unencyclopedic entries, so this thing should be deleted, don't you agree? Enco1984 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely nothing but in-universe plot summary and OR. Nothing even worth merging to Johnny Bravo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I agree that it's completely original research. The quotes are already listed in Wikiquote. Nearly all the information about Johnny himself is listed in the main article. The remainder is either in-universe trivia or otherwise original research as I have mentioned above. There was no reason for the character, which is the name of the cartoon itself, to be spun out of its own article. MuZemike 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely useless. There's nothing here at all to merge anywhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Main character in a significant work of fiction. Yes, the article needs to be trimmed somewhat, but a discussion of a characters role relative to the other characters is encyclopedic, and can be soured directly from the fiction. As for secondary sources, I suppose the nom. has made a comprehensive search, including print, for material from the period of the show, 1997-2004? Online sources are not consistently reliable especially for the earlier part of this period & one cannot conclude unsourceable for their absence. DGG (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't need personal interpretations of a children's cartoon show, thanks. Even if it were, the entirety of the show is the titular character's interaction with other characters, so any such interpretation belongs in Johnny Bravo.
- Right now, there's absolutely zero content to merge. Potential content is irrelevant, because as this is the main character of the show who does not transcend the show, any such potential content belongs in Johnny Bravo. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As DGG said, it is a main character in a significant work of fiction. I believe policy is to fix an article if it needs work, not to simply erase it. Dream Focus 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What work would you do on it? What work can you do on this that doesn't belong in Johnny Bravo? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think all that information would fit in the main article. I believe in preserving information which some would find useful or interesting. Dream Focus 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Information such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as the information listed in the entire article. You shouldn't delete something, someone might want to read, simply because you don't like it. There is no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor should something be deleted because it overuses the letter F. Neither "I don't like it" (I love this cartoon) nor overuse of a consonant are anyone's reasons to delete this. Instead, it's redundant, poorly-written and utterly unsourced drek, laced with excessive quoting, arbitrary and cherrypicked lists of trivial factoids, and Made Up Shit. Nor is any article needed here; there's nothing to say about Johnny Bravo that isn't about Johnny Bravo, and there's not so much sourced content in Johnny Bravo that we need two articles.
- You're right that it's better to fix an article than just delete it. How would you fix this? Not necessarily what sources you have immediately at hand, but potential sources. Can you suggest any? Can you suggest what they might say, what sort of topics they might discuss? If you can't propose some sort of sourced information that would go here and not in Johnny Bravo, cannot even conceive of any potential types of sourceable factual claims, what hope does this ever have of being an article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as the information listed in the entire article. You shouldn't delete something, someone might want to read, simply because you don't like it. There is no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Information such as? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think all that information would fit in the main article. I believe in preserving information which some would find useful or interesting. Dream Focus 02:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What work would you do on it? What work can you do on this that doesn't belong in Johnny Bravo? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MuZemike and AMIB. This atrocious article contains no content suitable for inclusion as it's entirely OR or trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Relevant information is already in the Johnny Bravo article. This article is just a trivial dumping ground that isn't suitable for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is horrible as it stands, but topic meets inclusion guidelines. [[16]] [[17]] both have significant character information and the second has a lot of stuff about the character. Sources like [18] also provide a bit on the character. Clearly enough for an article from RSes. In general, main characters from highly notable series are notable. Editorially a merge might make sense, but that should be for the talk page of the article, not here. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And those are both quite decent references for Johnny Bravo. Why would they go in some separate article?
- Nobody's saying that this isn't notable; the argument is that it is not in any way a separate subject. This is a show about Johnny Bravo, and all of the characters exist as broadly-drawn one-joke characters from him to riff off of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think part of the discussion is if the character meets notability guidelines. I think the above sources show that he does. Organization of that material shouldn't fall under AfD's purview (in my opinion). I realize that's not everyone's opinion on the role of AfD. But I generally only suggest merging an article if it can't stand on it's own per our notability/inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If Prince Hamlet were "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda", I wouldn't suggest merging it to Hamlet. This article has no more content useful for a merge to Johnny Bravo than random gibberish would have. The article content is useless. The article's potential is absolutely nothing that wouldn't better belong in Johnny Bravo. You can't merge potential. You don't need to save potential in an article history. There's nothing here to save.
- Arguing to keep useless content under a title that isn't a separate article topic because of technicalities in what you feel constitutes AFD's purview strikes me as bureaucratic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable viewpoint. My argument is that AfD isn't for content disputes and that the decision to merge notable articles is a content dispute. AfD decisions to merge tend to be taken much more strongly than a single editor's decision to merge. I assume that's due to the sense that AfD is commenting on the notability of the topics when closing with a merge result. As that's not my intent (and not your either I guess) I think that !voting to merge is misleading in this case. I guess a close of "merge for editorial reasons, not notability reasons" would take care of that, but I've never seen such a close. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand you correctly, "delete without prejudice" wouldn't really bother you? It seem your main concern is the precedent that no article can be written here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike the idea of deleting an article due to its current content. I'd be fine with a huge "stubification". But I do agree the current article has basically nothing to recommend it. So removal of that content is fine. And "delete without prejudice" would be a better result than merge (as I don't think there is anything worth merging at the moment) or a pure delete (as I think the topic could have a good article and meets WP:N). Hobit (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand you correctly, "delete without prejudice" wouldn't really bother you? It seem your main concern is the precedent that no article can be written here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable viewpoint. My argument is that AfD isn't for content disputes and that the decision to merge notable articles is a content dispute. AfD decisions to merge tend to be taken much more strongly than a single editor's decision to merge. I assume that's due to the sense that AfD is commenting on the notability of the topics when closing with a merge result. As that's not my intent (and not your either I guess) I think that !voting to merge is misleading in this case. I guess a close of "merge for editorial reasons, not notability reasons" would take care of that, but I've never seen such a close. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You wish to delete it because you believe the content is garbage. Well, 99% of the stuff on the wikipedia someone considers to be fancruft, that doesn't mean the fans won't enjoy reading it. I see nothing wrong with the article. If you aren't interested in reading it, you don't have to. No one ever finds an article without searching for it, and those who don't like it can easily hit the back button on their browser. Dream Focus 21:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda" might interest someone too, but in the meantime we have applicable standards. We should have a properly-written article under a better title. With no content to save and a useless secondary title, this has nothing of value. By the way, you haven't answered the question I posed to you above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Dream Focus: though I'm a pretty strong inclusionist, that viewpoint is a bit excessive in my mind. What should limit what we do cover? If there is too much stuff, our ability (and interest) in keeping out hoaxes and other false information goes down. So we have inclusion and writing guidelines. The article in question, as it stands, is a mess and there is no way to confirm if hardly any of it is true. Once cleaned up this has the potential to be a good article. So I think we should keep. But not because someone might enjoy reading it. That would lead us to keeping massive amounts of unverifiable material. I think WP:N is too strict and would prefer to default to WP:V as an inclusion guideline. But that view doesn't (yet) have consensous, so we stick with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think part of the discussion is if the character meets notability guidelines. I think the above sources show that he does. Organization of that material shouldn't fall under AfD's purview (in my opinion). I realize that's not everyone's opinion on the role of AfD. But I generally only suggest merging an article if it can't stand on it's own per our notability/inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is a about a main character of a major cartoon series, it seems to cover all his attributes. Though it needs more citations plus a cleanup. I suggest contacting someone involved from the show to make an accurate depiction of this character. Nevertheless, we should keep it for now.--Amerana (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - Draeco (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as per above, as per these comments: "This article contains unencyclopedic entries, Absolutely nothing but in-universe plot summary and OR...I agree that it's completely original research...we don't need personal interpretations of a children's cartoon show"
I once again quote: 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 policy: "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" Ikip (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Its potential is to become completely redundant with Johnny Bravo, instead of completely useless. This is a sideways move. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Redundant but not completely useless" is a reason for redirection, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. When someone writes an article that's redundant instead of completely useless, feel free to redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I don't find the current article "completely useless", I won't. However, I probably wouldn't revert a redirect either, and if I have the time I might even see if there's anything worth merging from the edit history. I object to outright deletion, which effectively means I will not be allowed to examine the edit history (without begging an admin) to find anything worth merging. DHowell (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. When someone writes an article that's redundant instead of completely useless, feel free to redirect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Redundant but not completely useless" is a reason for redirection, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its potential is to become completely redundant with Johnny Bravo, instead of completely useless. This is a sideways move. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on Johnny Bravo Ikip (talk) 00:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Not even the slightest inkling of sufficient notability to be found. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to main cartoon article. There's no need for a spinoff in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per DGG, Dream Focus and Amerana. EagleFan (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wholly constitutive of uncited plot descriptions and/or original research. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A major character of a notable cartoon series, and I was able to find sources to confirm some of the information. Sourcing the character's quotes is another matter though, since it originated from a television show. Userafw (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources are about the series as a whole, and would better fit in the series' article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is a major fictional character, and any and all original research should be looked up and changed to... um... not original research. And, the nomination is incomplete... "so this thing should be deleted, don't you agree?" isn't exactly the best thing to have in a deletion nomination.--Unionhawk (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep very notable, well written mostly. Needs improvement but it's daft to get rid of an article like this. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice to a merge or redirect, which should be decided elsewhere. There is at least some sourced content here and redundancy is not a good reason to delete, see WP:DEL#Merging. Are people really unable to distinguish an article like this from meaningless gibberish like "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda"? Also, plain description of primary source content (as opposed to subjective interpretation) is not original research, despite tortured claims to the contrary. DHowell (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no more useful to that article than "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda", as it's trite, excessively detailed subjective interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trite" and "excessively detailed" are your personal opinions (unlike the undeniable fact that random gibberish is random gibberish, unless it's some sort of encryption); and not everything in the article is "subjective interpretation". DHowell (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you can answer the question I posed to DreamFocus above. What not-sourced-to-Fluffikins content can you put in this article that doesn't belong in the main article? If the answer is nothing, all this will ever be is redundant, excessive detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not until you can answer a couple questions of my own: (1) Who or what the hell is "Fluffikins"? (2) What kind of content would you accept as belonging in an article about the character and not in an article about the series? Be specific. DHowell (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thought I'd used that analogy already. This is cat sourced entirely to someone's housecat, Fluffikins.
- As for what would justify a standalone article for this character? So much sourced information that it cannot fit anywhere but in a separate article from Johnny Bravo, or some sort of commentary on this character that was not simply about the series he appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone's housecat is not a published source. And even if it was, about all you could say about it without using any other sources is that there is an animal with four legs and fur of a particular color scheme that makes a sound resembling the word "meow", and other things which may or may not apply to other cats. On the other hand Johnny Bravo is a published source, even available on DVD, so anyone can verify descriptive information about the characters portrayed using this primary published source.
- As far as "commentary on this character that was not simply about the series he appears in", do you mean like the information in this article, for example? DHowell (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnny Bravo is the article subject, and we don't observe subjects to write articles on them. As for that article, it's about the animation and marketing of a retool of Johnny Bravo. It might even be useful for a spinoff article JBVO, but it isn't about this character as a separate subject from the single show he appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not until you can answer a couple questions of my own: (1) Who or what the hell is "Fluffikins"? (2) What kind of content would you accept as belonging in an article about the character and not in an article about the series? Be specific. DHowell (talk) 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't suppose you can answer the question I posed to DreamFocus above. What not-sourced-to-Fluffikins content can you put in this article that doesn't belong in the main article? If the answer is nothing, all this will ever be is redundant, excessive detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trite" and "excessively detailed" are your personal opinions (unlike the undeniable fact that random gibberish is random gibberish, unless it's some sort of encryption); and not everything in the article is "subjective interpretation". DHowell (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no more useful to that article than "23463wdfs ygxcbsdfgr52364 eryfgbdsfy3tewfdas a23qwrda", as it's trite, excessively detailed subjective interpretation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: contains original research and trivial non-notable information. JamesBurns (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect Original research, in-universe style article that is indeed excessively detailed for an encyclopedia. Just because he's a lead fictional character doesn't mean he deserves his own article. Notability isn't inherited here. This would be much more suitable under the main show's article. It's time to make this a serious encyclopedia and get rid of all this uncited original research and condense the most useful and notable information into the article about the show. The DRV of the list of units in the age of mythology series just closed with the closer acknowledging that the "scale and level of detail of the original list is considered beyond the encyclopedia's scope" and I believe a similiar comparison can be made to this article, especially when the broad scope is based on original research. Themfromspace (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Major character that should be improved, not deleted. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The character is functionally identical to the program, and vice versa, and nothing here is worth merging. Powers T 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Power said above, the character and series are more or less identical. Everything that's covered in here, could easily be covered in the main article.--Sloane (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, he is the main character of a popular cartoon. There are references and it is notable.Smallman12q (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. EagleFan (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This is EagleFan's second !vote. One, Two. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:52, 25 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of colonial governors in 1632[edit]
- List of colonial governors in 1632 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. No content here. Sibitysam (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:BUNDLE, would this AfD set a precedent for the treatment of everything listed at Colonial governors by year? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sure there's content--it has to be seen in context with the other governor by year articles. There is more to be added-- for example, Sebastiaen Jansen Krol in New Netherland was in office 1632-3. . DGG (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, and since the notability of each year in the Colonial governors by year set seems to be equal. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a part of the Colonial governors by year series; however, I wonder if merging these into decades(e.g. List of colonial governors in the 1630s) might be better, at least for the 17th century and earlier. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Beyond having no content, this article has no context. Governors of what? What constitutes of governor? Even the year is in doubt since one of the links is to the Governors in 1633. As it is, it only has one point in it, a redlink governor from Angola. If this list were to be expanded to what (I assume) is the subject, it would be indiscriminate and even then not appropriate for inclusion. For me, there's no possible way to spin this so that it could be kept. Themfromspace (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Governors of what?" Governors of colonies. "What constitutes a governor?" See Governor. The link to 1633 is a navigational link to the next year in the series, common to all lists in this and the state leaders series. What evidence do you have that a complete list of colonial governors would be "indiscriminate"? What if it were only a list of notable colonial governors (assuming there is such a thing as a non-notable colonial governor)? DHowell (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of state leaders in 1632, agree that this is a tad broad. Secret account 14:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Colonial governors" are not "state leaders", so are you suggesting a merge? And how broad could a list be that currently has only
one entrysix entries? I know there should be more, but how many colonies were there in 1632? A few English colonies, a Portuguese colony or two, some Danish and Dutch colonies, perhaps? It would be nice if we had a "list of colonies in 1632" or "list of colonies in the 1630s" as well. DHowell (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - I've expanded the list to six entries. DHowell (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Colonial governors" are not "state leaders", so are you suggesting a merge? And how broad could a list be that currently has only
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mary Yang. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "Delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidt[edit]
- Michael Q. Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor character actor, with no real prominent roles. The fundamental problems from the previous noms have NOT been addressed, and simply saying WP:ILIKEIT because the subject is a Wikipedia editor doesn't exempt this from ordinary notability standards. Wikipedia is not a CV service.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: there also appears to be suspicious connections with an indefinitely blocked sockpuppeteer--namely multiple edits by sockpuppets--that ought to raise red flags. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CalendarWatcher, I would appreciate if you would remove the checkuser accusation, which has no relevance to this AfD. There was no evidence that the two editors are the same as Thatcher wrote:
- "Unless Alison saved her previous results, L.L.King is too Stale to check. You'll have to decide what to do about MichaelQSchmidt without technical assistance. Thatcher 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)".
- Please remove this immediatly, and I will then remove my response. Ikip (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '[T]oo stale to check' does NOT equal 'unrelated', as even a moment's reflexion should tell you, nor have I made any accusations. So no, I will not remove anything. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CalendarWatcher, I would appreciate if you would remove the checkuser accusation, which has no relevance to this AfD. There was no evidence that the two editors are the same as Thatcher wrote:
- OK, the silence is becoming deafening, so I'll bite with a keep recommendation. Let's look at the nom rationale:
- Minor character actor - do you want something new here? It's all been said before in the previous AfDs. Notability is established by the sheer number of minor roles; participation in a cult show; selection for a specific body-type. And as discussed ad nauseam, the notability is minor but does clear the threshold - at least until we run out of paper and have to tear this one out and write something else on the back.
- fundamental problems - the same "problems" that have seen the article kept repeatedly? Granted of course that you disagree with the prior decisions, but what do you want? Should everyone just copy-paste in their comments from last time?
- the subject is a Wikipedia editor - irrelevant. But since you brought it up, yes, and that editor is also an ardent inclusionist who has many times upgraded articles at risk and thus forestalled their deletion. Does that bother you? And since you're implying wrongdoing of some kind, care to back it up with some diffs? Which !votes were improperly cast in the past?
- suspicious connections - now that is a bit of really old news. Have you actually read any of the history? It's all well explained. (Hint - there's a link here on this page that already leads to the story) And again, it's irrelevant. A SPA/sock made the last AfD nom as their first edit and that fact was deemed irrelevant then. Does socking suddenly become more suspicious when it can be used to support your own POV?
- Seriously, what more do you want? The arguments to keep are the same as last time, so are the arguments to delete. Try, try again? Franamax (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup clarification: the "deafening silence" I refer to above appears to be due to a misformed AfD entry by the nom. I spotted this via watchlist and was thus unaware until the helpful DumbBOT pointed it out (below). As to the nom response immediately following, I am unable to discern a need to respond in turn. Franamax (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I was completely uninvolved with--and completely unaware--of any previous AFDs, your overly long and somewhat hysterical rationale starts from false premises and really doesn't get much better. To start with, my use of the adjective 'minor' might have been a tip-off: as in 'uninfluential' or 'little impact'. Certainly no evidence has been provided of any actual impact of these alleged numerous roles nor of why the length of a CV trumps all other notability considerations. That would cover my use of 'fundamental problems' as well, whatever your ridiculing--without addressing--misses. As for the subject being a Wikipedia editor, the problems--real and potential--of vote-stacking and WP:ILIKEHIM votes should be fairly obvious, whatever bizarre strawman arguments you throw up like a squid throws out ink. And for someone bangs on about how reading the history is supposed to explain anything, you don't appear to have done the slightest bit of reading yourself, with your sputtering 'Try try again?' jibe, as I have not--once again--been involved in any aspect of this article, neither editing nor voting on any previous nominations. The fact is certainly easier to ascertain than this 'obvious' explanation for a rash of obvious sockpuppets in the edit history: perhaps you would care to provide a non-hysterical version of that story? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Calendar watcher, your tenacity and desire to improve the encyclopedia are commendable. Thanks for bringing these to the table, even if we disagree.
- As for "the problems--real and potential--of vote-stacking", the only real concern should be for real vote stacking. Near as I can tell, none has occurred in this or any of the past AfD discussions. The potential for vote stacking is always present and can only be mitigated by vigilance and observation. If you have evidence of vote stacking in previous or current related AfDs, I highly recommend taking them to WP:SSP.
- Additionally, as a recommendation, I'd check the talk pages of articles which you wish to delete. Most contain links to any previous AfD discussions. That might help mitigate issues with repetitive nominations. That said, if you read something and disagree with the conclusions or the article has changed (or hasn't changed), feel free to nominate it at the appropriate venue. Cheers! — BQZip01 — talk 14:37, 20 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]
- Strong keep per WP:ENTERTAINER: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Schmidt had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Schmidt has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Listed as among the top ten all-time favorite Tim Eric regulars: http://www.adultswim.com/americaloveslists/te_regulars/index.html In depth article at Film Threat http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=interviews&Id=1225 Ikip (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what 'significant roles' in what 'notable' films are you referring to? Being among the 'top ten' of a distinctly minor television programme strikes me as a bit like being among the 'top ten' curries in a small High Street restaurant: intended to sound significant, but signifying nothing much at all. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not sure what more needs to be said. In-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources (Filmthreat interview) and significant roles in multiple notable TV shows demonstrate notability. Also, I'm hard-pressed to see how the article promotes the subject at all. It appears to be a neutral, if short, piece. TNXMan 17:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sourcing is sufficient. I would have interpreted the 2nd Afd as a keep. I see this a third keep, and think that a repeated afd before ant least another year or two would be wholly inappropriate, & would start to look over-personal.. DGG (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG and WP:ENTERTAINER. I voted to delete last time I think, but I'm now satisfied that Michael is sufficiently notable to be recorded in the pages of enwiki. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how he meets ANY of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, as long as the normal English version of the various adjectives are being used. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the rest of us do, so y'know you're probably gonna have to live with it. If I was a suspicious minded type, I'd question your motivations with this AfD. Good thing I'm not a suspicious minded type, isn't it? Be well X MarX the Spot (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. As far as notability goes -- he definitely does have a cult following. He's on the freaking Tim & Eric Awesome Show calendar this year and was interviewed by Film Threat. And even if many of his roles are small, he's unusually prolific, especially of late. Shatner1 (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being on--and not as a star--of a distinctly minor TV programme means very little, nor does one magazine interview, nor does how many lines he can put on his CV. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above and arguments in past discussions. — BQZip01 — talk 23:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is less reason to delete than before, and this is now the third try. The use of an issue which is not even relevant to the discussion is telling. If the reasons have diminished, one would hope this now becomes Snow Keep Collect (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is less reason to keep than before, as I'm not seeing anything more than special pleading, hysterical accusations of bad faith, and non-compliance with basic notability standards. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see no hysteria above, and no special pleadings, I would kindly suggest that the emotion so noted by you does not exist in this discussion, and hence does not further this discussion. Nor, moreover, have I seen a slew od delete recommendations at this point. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with Collect: Snow Keep. There is no hysteria and mass disagreement with the opinion of a single individual is not non-compliance with any standard. It is disagreement with your assessment. WP:CONSENSUS applies. — BQZip01 — talk 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see no hysteria above, and no special pleadings, I would kindly suggest that the emotion so noted by you does not exist in this discussion, and hence does not further this discussion. Nor, moreover, have I seen a slew od delete recommendations at this point. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As of yet, I have seen no convincing arguments to delete this article. Notability appears to be established by the 55 films (soon to be more) he was in. Deletion on the grounds of a "connection" with a sockpuppeter is not valid reasoning. The fact that he is a Wikipedian has no bearing on the matter. ←Spidern→ 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep If anything, the article needs expanding -- the Film Threat interview with Mr. Schmidt mentions his work on the first Harry Potter movie and TV work with Jimmy Kimmel and Penn and Teller, and that should be cited in the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not being privy to this bit of WikiDrama, the article itself stands up quite well to the inclusion guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 00:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oh my... its him! I didn't know he had an article. Anyhow, looking over the article and the debate I have to agree with most everyone above me. MQS meets the notability guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 02:44, 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 00:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Micheal space[edit]
- Micheal space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research, appears to be repost of AFD'd essay WP:Articles for deletion/Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature, unreliable references. MuffledThud (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research being posted by its creator (see talk page). No independent references. (Gravitation-distributed-temporal-curvature was by the same author but different text.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No hits on Google scholar to establish notability, and few independent ones on the standard Google search. ("Michael Space" gets a few hits, but doesn't appear to be the same thing at all). Anaxial (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence that this has ever been published in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, original complaint addressed in talk for article, refs added, notability and published complaints: we've established that i'm nobody. i cannot argue that. but.. as argued on the talk page, viable alternatives to the standard model should stay up especially when they question the enormous resources allocated for Higgs detection such as the LHC. the public has a right to know the level of uncertainty associated with such endeavors. this page not only does that - it provides a viable alternative to standard model assumptions. the issue of notability and published (yes or no) is not especially relevant here. Dr. Stephen Hawking has been asked to intervene (give his professional opinion). why don't we wait for that and some results from the LHC. a single page of text cannot take up that much server space considering the worth and potential benefit to physics.&Delta (talk) 03:47, 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 speedy keep , nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oil Can Henry's[edit]
- Oil Can Henry's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be Vanispamcruftisement; one of the major contributors is affiliated with the company, judging by the username (User:Oilcanmike17) and its contribution history. Additionally there is no indication of notability, nor did a quick google search pull up any matches besides the company home page and the wikipedia article. Nominating for deletion rather than CSD because it at least seems to be a widespread chain; perhaps someone with the inclination to do so could save it. McJeff (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and suggest withdrawal of nomination - As to the first contention, though likely a COI editor, their work on the article that has actually remained (that is not reverted by others) is the addition of the infobox, hardly a problem. Next, from the AFD instructions: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Thus, the last statement made in the nomination is contrary to that goal and stretches AGF. As to the last contention yet addressed, the lack of sources to indicate notability, I have to question the veracity of that search, or to say, did the nominator following the AFD instructions: When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist. A Google search of "oil can henry's" gives you 20,000+ hits, which alone should tell you something about the likeliness of sources existing. I could understand if you get 100, but if there are more than 1,000 this should be a decent indicator that sources may exist. More telling though is if you go through the Google results, as I did. There is a book within the first 100 results that has more than a page on the company. A book that is independent of the company. Further searches through likely source areas (here a business, so a search of the Business Journal franchise of newspapers is in order) turns up 6 articles that have coverage of the company and a search of the newspaper for where the company is based (The Oregonian) comes up with 88 hits. Then with non-free searches, the same phrase gets 235 hits from an "all news" search that is nationwide for newspapers and magazines, though 88 of those would be duplicates. Now these all may not provide substantial coverage in each case, but it should give serious pause before nominating for deletion. Perhaps a notability tag next time. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Polonahá[edit]
- Polonahá (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
check the translation link in the notenglish tag, article is a dicdef of the word "skimpy" with a huge lump of OR where its meaning is calculated from the meaning of nudity Jac16888Talk 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this crackpot OR on an etymology that doesn't even apply to the English language. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: dicdef + OR. JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; I was tempted to speedy delete it per G1, but it is not patent nonsense. Lectonar (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - copypasted Czech entry. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:11, 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) Erik9 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Willson (artist)[edit]
- Robert Willson (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. This person doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO criteria:
WP:CREATIVE Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
Perhaps the article is simply not stating his case enough...I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but he does not seem notable based on the article's information. Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The obit, the book on him and the journal article on him seem to me to clearly show he was a notable artist.John Z (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the collections of the Smithsonian, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and LACMA. Showed at the Venice Biennale in 1972. Clear pass of WP:CREATIVE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are easily enough sources already in the article to demonstrate notability, and plenty more here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 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. MBisanz talk 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Veneto-Brazilian[edit]
- Veneto-Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a made-up phrase by an editor pushing Venetian nationalism and with no understanding of our policy on reliable sources (looking at his other articles). dougweller (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Attempts to create new nations through Wikipedia pages are doomed to failure. SkipSmith (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete made up borderline nonsense LetsdrinkTea 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:44, 25 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 01:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matty G the Musician[edit]
- Matty G the Musician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Article is about a non-notable musician. It cites no reliable secondary sources, and is largely promotional for the subject. The creating editor is User:MattyGtheMusician, which suggests a conflict of interest. Article fails WP:N, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and (though not in itself grounds for outright deletion) WP:COI and WP:NPOV. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-taught self-promoter. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 07:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete. Sources are all Valid OldManMoses (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — OldManMoses (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep It!. Yes I did start this article and I am Matty G, but before you just say "Delete, delete, delete", why don't you check ANY of the 30 sources that I've linked? They prove that I've been published and endorsed many times by a bunch of credible web pages, magazines, etc. and even a few celebrities. It's all right there. Just check it and you will see I promise you! Please just don't say "Delete" without checking them out because that is wrong. This article is not intended for self-promotion. I'm not selling anything and even if you do ignore the facts and delete this article, I guarantee you that someone else is going to write an article about me in the near future and it's because I'm notable. MattyGtheMusician (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC) — MattyGtheMusician (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete There's nothing wrong with being self-taught - I am on most of my instruments. However, this whole thing strikes me as promotional material backed mainly with references to blogs. The performance has an originality that must not be confused with notability. A skate-boarding budgie makes it into the papers. Is it notable? No. Will this last? I believe not. If it does, someone will write an article. An independent article - 'about' rather than 'by'. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It!. Then in your line of thinking, Peridon, and with all due respect, that would mean that Zack Kim, the man who plays 2 guitars at the same time, or Greg Patillo, the man who beatboxes while playing the flute, are both original but not notable, and yet they have articles on wikipedia. Is there any difference between the originality of those two musicians and myself? Yes, they are definitely more notable than I am, but I am in the same category as they are. And most importantly, I still fulfill Wikipedia's criteria. You say that my sources are mostly self-published blogs, and that is simply not true, with all due respect. I did not put myself on those web sites- other people did, and in many cases without my permission. I only found out that I was on those sites months later after finding them on Google, or having a friend tell me they saw my video posted on CollegeHumor.com or Destructoid.com, or Instinct Magazine, or the Iona College Newspaper, etc. And as for the credibilty of those sources, for example, CollegeHumor has a television show debuting on MTV this season, and the staff at that organization nationally showcased me twice on their well-known web page in the last 2 years. The sources are all there. This is kind of like me trying to buy something that costs 5 dollars, and I'm holding out a 5 dollar bill, and yet the Wikipedia employees are telling me that I don't have enough money. It's all right there. Please try to be understanding. And once again, I'm not selling anything. All of the information is non-commercial and factual. With that in mind, will it really make a difference if the article was started by me as opposed to someone else? If someone not named "MattyGtheMusician" started this article, would it change all of the perfectly good evidence in the links that "MattyGtheMusician" is notable? MattyGtheMusician (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources no matter who posted there. I haven't time to check all your references. The ones I picked (at random) were blogs, apart from one which gave a one line mention. Greg Patillo? I can't see where it says he plays the flute AND beatboxes. Two hands are needed for the flute. (It'll fall down otherwise, as well as needing fingers to stop holes.) I suspect he beatboxes the sound of the flute, just as Bobby McFerrin produces a group of instrumental sounds. Zack Kim does play two guitars, but not in conventional style. His article needs better referencing. But Wikipedia doesn't work on 'He's got one, so I can have one too'. Your article is too promotional for me. Wait till you get notable - someone will write an article. If you can't get notable without an article, sorry - Wikipedia isn't for boosting people up the ladder. It's for recording those who've climbed up, been dropped by helicopter at the top, or in some cases fallen off. Peridon (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say the blogs were published by you. Blogs are blogs. Not reliable evidence of notability. Peridon (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree about blogs being unreliable sources. If you consider something like CollegeHumor.com a blog, then I must be out of luck. And yes Greg Patillo is a beatboxing flute player. Search it on youtube (or wikipedia). He's very well-known and I've actually met him at one of his shows. I wasn't trying the "he's got one, so I can have one too" defense- I was simply making a point that you say my content is not notable and temporary, but is in the same category as a Zack Kim or Greg Patillo, who seem to be worthy enough. I am new to posting on Wikipedia and I now understand how seriously it is taken, and I respect your opinions and policies, though they make me feel very disappointed. But I am pretty confident that you (Wikipedia) will have to reconsider my article in the future (assuming that you go ahead and delete this original article). But once again, I stand by the sources. Though some may be considered blogs, there are credible sources in their too. Isn't it appropriate that a One Man Band would also write his own Wikipedia article? That was supposed to be humorous. Oh well, I guess (if you delete this) I'll have to just be patient like a 19-year old waiting to get into bars. It's always gotta be a long struggle to be worth it. Best wishes. MattyGtheMusician (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no widespread independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing the notability guidelines. No sources can be found to establish notability. Also note the clear COI who !voted twice in this AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't count CollegeHumor as a "widespread 3rd party source" that proves notablity, then there's something wrong with Wikipedia. Perhaps none of you have heard of the web site, but it is well-known and HAS A TELEVISION SHOW ON MTV in America. That is just one of my sources that you say are not good enough. But that alone should be enough. I can personally email you the letter that CollegeHumor sent me the first time they NATIONALLY syndicated my video in June 2007. (69.119.213.166 (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)) — 69.119.213.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mobility kill[edit]
- Mobility kill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Listed per WP:DICDEF, being basically a reproduction of the wiktionary definition with little additional content. The term is US military jargon, and I can't see the article expanding beyond stub status into anything more than the current dictionary definition. EyeSerenetalk 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can easily see this developing beyond a stub. It is currently unreferenced in the article, but if this is something that is actually a means of performing combat, then various examples of merits or drawback of the method, as experienced in action, would easily take this beyond a mere dictionary article. It isn't even completely dictionary-like now. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's not a “method”, it's one of many self-evident events when operating military vehicles in combat. As far as I know, there are no books and articles about “Mobility Kill”, and it's not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article. If there's anything at all worth saving, it should be merged into armoured warfare. —Michael Z. 2009-02-20 19:23 z
- Keep This article was transwikied to Wiktionary in September 2008 and converted to a soft redirect on 29 December. The very same day, someone changed the capitalization on the Wiktionary entry, breaking the redirect. This apparently led a different user to restore the article on 15 February. I suggest restoring the proper Wiktionary redirect. Rklear (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search turned up several sources using the term, in regard to offensive capabilities, defensive capabilities, and simulations. I believe the article could be fleshed out regarding the value of such actions (e.g. specific weapons designed for mobility-kill), protection against such actions (e.g. defense systems, tank designs, etc.) and simulated behavior (e.g. use in "war games", video games, etc.). – 74 18:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Usage of the term simply proves the term is in use; the sources are not about mobility kills, but about the means to achieve them. We could use those sources to add that some weapons are designed to cause mobility kills, but anything more would be to wander off-focus and run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Restoration of the soft redirect per Rklear makes sense though. EyeSerenetalk 08:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; including references to analysis of weapons and defenses in regard to mobility-kills would be *exactly* what would expand this from a dictionary entry to an encyclopedia article. The only way this material "wanders off-focus" is if you insist on keeping this article as a dictionary reference, which seems a rather biased viewpoint given your nomination above. According to WP:DICTIONARY, this article should be about the concept mobility-kill, and how it applies, not just a definition of mobility-kill. Ultimately, the question you've raised is whether this article can be expanded beyond a stub; I believe the sources above are sufficient to demonstrate that it can. – 74 15:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may have explained myself poorly ;) I agree that the article, to qualify as a stand-alone Wikipedia entry, should be about the concept of mobility kills. However, the difficulty is that we have no sources that discuss mobility kills as a concept. Many of the mentions of 'mobility kill' in the sources you've provided are in passing, or in relation to something else, and would properly belong in articles about those subjects (ie the article on the weapon system or doctrine being discussed in the source). We need to be careful that, in trawling sources for enough information to build an article, we don't stretch the article beyond its scope or produce something original. EyeSerenetalk 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK, there's no limit to the number of articles that can cite a specific reference. I agree that references to "mobility kill" are thinly-spread, but even a single paragraph can provide a citation for the article. With the currently suggested sources, this article will never achieve FA status, but I still believe it can be improved beyond a dictionary stub. The key, as you pointed out, is to refrain from synthesizing multiple references into original research. Constructing an article without synthesis might prove impossible, but I think the article deserves the benefit of the doubt until we have that proof; besides, having an extra (valid) stub waiting for expansion is of no real harm to Wikipedia. – 74 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I may have explained myself poorly ;) I agree that the article, to qualify as a stand-alone Wikipedia entry, should be about the concept of mobility kills. However, the difficulty is that we have no sources that discuss mobility kills as a concept. Many of the mentions of 'mobility kill' in the sources you've provided are in passing, or in relation to something else, and would properly belong in articles about those subjects (ie the article on the weapon system or doctrine being discussed in the source). We need to be careful that, in trawling sources for enough information to build an article, we don't stretch the article beyond its scope or produce something original. EyeSerenetalk 18:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; including references to analysis of weapons and defenses in regard to mobility-kills would be *exactly* what would expand this from a dictionary entry to an encyclopedia article. The only way this material "wanders off-focus" is if you insist on keeping this article as a dictionary reference, which seems a rather biased viewpoint given your nomination above. According to WP:DICTIONARY, this article should be about the concept mobility-kill, and how it applies, not just a definition of mobility-kill. Ultimately, the question you've raised is whether this article can be expanded beyond a stub; I believe the sources above are sufficient to demonstrate that it can. – 74 15:38, 24 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 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
North Herts Premier Pool League NHPPL[edit]
- North Herts Premier Pool League NHPPL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"Highest level of amateur pool in Hertfordshire". Does that meet our notabilty criteria? — RHaworth (Talk
Comment: Pool even at the highest level is a fairly amateur sport. Vert few players are able to make a full-time living out of the game. This competition features many world ranked/professional players. RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE - also, its claim to fame "highest amateur league" is based on a "regarded by many" unsourced WP:WEASEL statement. It's almost worth a {{db-group}} -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nominator overplays the importance of the subject by leaving out the weasel words "regarded by many to be" before his quote.
Everyone knows that the most important part of Hertfordshire is the South-West.And, btw, the total lack of any web presence [19][20], for a contemporary subject in a location where internet use is prevalent, would seem to be pretty strong evidence of unnotability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tournament has a large fanbase/following on the internet on social networking sites. The maion site appears to be down. It also seems to have a number of ex-World Champions/famous players supporting it. Benefit of the doubt????? 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.196.89 (talk)
Comment: An anon IP editor has now twice removed the AfD template. I'll keep an eye on it (it's on my watchlist), but if someone else will help out in making sure the AfD template isn't removed until the debate here is closed, that'd be great! -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 07:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The NHPPL has a very large web presence via networking sites. The main html site is down for reconstruction. The tournament has been endorced by over 50 of the Worlds highest ranking players across varying codes of the game including Mikka Immonen (Multiple Mosconni Cup Winner), Keith Brewer (former Multiple World Champion), Darren Appleton (former European Champion) and Shane Appleton (former European Champion) & Johnny Archer (former World Champion) and many others. If you have former and current World Champions playing in and endorcing a tournament then surely it is of note.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Settlements are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Osmołowszczyzna[edit]
- Osmołowszczyzna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of the article lacks notability. Malatinszky (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep, villages are automatically notable per WP:IHN. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a populated, legally recognized village, and as such is considered notable per Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Baileypalblue (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - There is a long, long, long list of precedents that we do not delete legally recognized population centres. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:27, 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 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarrantry[edit]
- Tarrantry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's nearly nothing from any reliable sources on the internet about this fictional universe, much less anything to support claims of being "one of the largest fictional alternate history universes on the internet." - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I attempted a while back to do research for this article because it lacked notability. My search, however, did not produce any information that proved notability, especially the claim that is was the largest on the internet. The universe appears defunct now anyway as no one has written anything for it in a long time. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very few hits on Google, nothing even coming close to reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:33, 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 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JIMP[edit]
- JIMP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete. Unreferenced neologism, unable to establish any notability, contested PROD. Breaches WP:NEO. WWGB (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability guidelines, esp. provision of any reliable source to support notability.MarquisCostello (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete or redirect this to Jizz in My Pants, apparently a music parody from Saturday Night Live. To my mild surprise, we have a fairly extensive article on that parody. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: NEOLOGISM. "Jimp" apparently has several (non-encyclopedic) meanings, so a redirect to just one of them could cause confusion, and put Wikipedia in the position of establishing meaning instead of reporting it. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:17, 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 00:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PM&R Mnemonics[edit]
- PM&R Mnemonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It took me a while to figure out what this article is in fact about, but I gather it's a list of memorization tricks to help medical students and the like. I believe it's an example of WP:NOT#HOWTO and I wonder if it shouldn't be moved to wikiHow? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing here that fits into Wikipedia, it is impormation that is designed for UCLA residents and there are many sites on the Internet where this can be found. This is not even complete. fr33kman -s- 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not encyclopedic information, and the contents are not really notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Project 58[edit]
- Project 58 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not even a stub on a non-notable local site. The author removed my prod tag without improving the article, so I nominate it for deletion. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- in spite of the inspiring photograph, I find nothing whatsoever of encyclopedic value. J L G 4 1 0 4 15:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - advertising of non-notable organization fr33kman -s- 15:54, 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 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homeland Security (Mixtape)[edit]
- Homeland Security (Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:MUSIC. No substantial coverage in independent reliable sources provided. None found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: an anonymous user is consistently deleting the PROD tag. JamesBurns (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect to Cashis. No notability in itself, should be at most a mention in the main article. Themfromspace (talk) 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Backdown[edit]
- Backdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. (Crew list beggars belief - Chris Nolan, David Goyer, Hans Zimmer, really?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Weak keep'Weak delete, if current references can be provided. The current reference list has only two items in it, both from 2007. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC) Position changed, as I have not found definite RSs yet. The best I found was countingdown.com, which claimed the film is indeed in post-production -- but had no sources for the statement, nor current (2008 or 2009) news. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which indicate that filming ever started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If filming actually started (and for a release this August, the film should be in post-production Real Soon (tm)), some source ought to exist. Hence my weak position. (Maybe I'm actually a weak-delete?) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly amenable to withdrawing the AfD should such RSes exist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If filming actually started (and for a release this August, the film should be in post-production Real Soon (tm)), some source ought to exist. Hence my weak position. (Maybe I'm actually a weak-delete?) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of which indicate that filming ever started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepFilming has started which should qualify this article as a "future" film candidate. Bzuk (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC) FWIW[reply]
- I don't see any sources which indicate that. (Plus, it would have happened almost two years ago.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL Secret account 14:06, 24 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. Defaults to keep Fritzpoll (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers[edit]
- Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability asserted, no citable references. Article has existed for more than 18 months with little substantial change, and no evidence that film ever went into production, thus likely failing future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that production has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Film is slated to be released in June 2009 (see bottom of http://www.bobetbobette.be/ -- in French). English version of the film is going to be called Luke & Lucie - The Texas Rangers according to the home page of the production company: http://www.cotoon-studio.com/films-bob-bobette-EN.php
- Just because the release has been delayed does not mean that it never went into production.
- Film is notable for being Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film. Krikke (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No IMDb entry for any of "Bob & Bobette", "Spike and Suzy" nor "Luke & Lucie". The official website listed in the article contains nothing but the disclaimer "Coming soon !". Extensive Google searches for any of the above search terms come up with no reliable hits that could verify that principal photography has started on this film. Per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at http://www.flanders-image.com/index.php?col=/product&doc=1225&title=Bob%20&%20Bobette:%20The%20Texas%20Rangers. This is a Flanders government website that provides information on films that the Flemish Government funds or helps fund. Under "detailed information" on the right, the first thing it says is that the film is in production. I think this website qualifies as a reliable source. If both the Flemish Government and the production company state this film is coming out in 2009, and a trailer is available to view online, I think it is pretty obvious that this film and its release date are legit.
- Why delete this entry now when it will just have to be recreated in four months? Krikke (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Commencement of principal photography" is a term that doesn't apply to this film, as it is a computer-generated animated film. There is no principal photography. There was no principal photography on WALL-E either. Does that mean the article on WALL-E should be removed? The fact that there is a trailer and at least 20 different stills is evidence that production has begun. The stills and the film trailer indicate that at least portions of this film have been completed, otherwise there would be no stills or trailer. I am clearly not going to be able to find a website that states that "principal photography on Spike and Suzy: The Texas Rangers has commenced." You are not going to find a similar statement for Pixar's next animated film either. Krikke (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Teaser trailer: http://www.skyline-entertainment.be/skyline/showreel_en.php?ss=a&an=up&flv=susenwis_teaser. The line of text at the end is Dutch for "Summer 2009 in theatres".
- I would not consider a a trailer to be a reliable source since trailers are usually self-published. As far as the term "commencement of principal photography" not applying to animated films, we can easily substitute the term "production of the animated image" (as per this document of the New Zealand government) so the WP:NFF can be taken to say "[Animated] films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced production of the animated image should not have their own articles." With all of the links you have provided so far, we still have no confirmation by reliable sources that production of the animated image has commenced. Still shots and teaser trailers could have been produced independently and it's possible that nothing else of the film exists other than those trailers and still shots. I'm not saying that's the case but we really are missing any reliable sources. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that if it is Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film, that makes it notable. And since it has already received funding, and there is some reasonable proof that it has been completed, it probably exist. Dream Focus 11:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 19:36, 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]
- Keep due to my good faith acceptance of User:Krikke translations of available sources. Being officially announced by a government source that the film will be released in June kinda pushes the WP:NFF bar for me. If it was industry hype, I could disregard it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I must admit that I really appreciate Krikke's efforts to dig up and translate available sources. However, the problem that I'm experiencing is that I can't really accept any of those sources as reliable. Official sites are usually promotional (as are the sites for this film) and promotional sites are automatically not neutral. Government websites would usually pass my threshold of a reliable source except in the case where the government is actively involved in financing and promoting the film, such as this particular film. This, in my opinion, disqualifies the Flemish government as a "third-party" since they are directly involved in the making of this film. Besides the promotional sites by the filmmakers and a quasi-promotional entry on the website of the financier (the Flemish government), we have no other sources to indicate anything about the status of this film. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... in it being "Belgium's first feature length computer-animated film", it has notability. And the government being involved in proudly creating this first for their film industry kind of underscores that notability. What we need here is more International input, as more non-English sources may certainly exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not arguing notabiliy, I agree that notability exists. I'm arguing complete lack of reliable sources proving the film can pass WP:NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which unfortunately is a sometimes fatal flaw (to articles) of the guidelines of enwiki as described per WP:NONENG. All one can hope for in curbing a systemic bias is that editors who are able to research these non-English sources do so. I do appreciate your granting tnat WP:N exists. All we need to now is encourage those souces get added to the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we're not on the same page here. I'm not trying to discredit any foreign language sources, as long as they're reliable, and I'm not looking for English sources to prove notability. In any language, the subject of this article suffers from a chronic lack of a reliable source that proves it ever made past the planning stages and it into full production. The point of WP:NFF is to differentiate between planned films and films that have a high probability of being completed and released and this can usually be predicted by proving whether or not principal photography (or the above described equivalent for animated films) has commenced; this is the point of no return for most financiers and films that have made it to this stage are likely to be completed. If we had a single reliable source unconnected to the producers, film-makers or the government that confirms something about the production (rather than just an estimated release date and promotional trailers), the film would pass WP:NFF and qould deserve its own article. But we don't so it doesn't. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More souces should certainly be translated and added to meet your concerns, but I am now quite satisfied that the article meets the criteria of WP:NFF in that "filming" has commenced and that the film and its filmmakers are getting coverage. What English sources could I find toward the filmmakers and their film? Animation World Network, Animation Europe,Flanders Animation, CG Channel, 3DM3, Flanders Image, which tend to indicate notability. What non-English sources in the same search? Ah-hah... lots, lots more: Les Film d'Animation Avenir, Leusderkrant, Arcaplex, Le Pole, Movie Motion, 3DHype, Score Magazine, Dreaming Moon, Wallywood, Movie Machine, 3DVF, and more.... but I cannot read any of them. However, a few of these sources seem rather in-depth, and several seem to indicate that film creation is definitely underway. The volume of these non-English souces seems to tickle a non-English GNG. Know any translators of French, Dutch, Flemish, and German? They could be of great help with these. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a summary of the above sources in order in which they were listed above:
- Animation World Network article says of the project only the following: "Lux Animation is also working on a 3-D CG project, SPIKE AND SUZY: TEXAS DEVILS directed by Wim Bien and Mark Mertens" and is dated May 15, 2008. "Is working" does not mean principal photography, or its equivalent, has begun; it may only mean negotiating or planning.
- When I tell someone I am "working" in the garden, it does not mean I am negotiating or planning. It means I am out there removing weeds. The translation to English of the source may have been garbled. But I am not advocating the limited English sources. Only offered in agreement with you that they are "limited".
- Animation Europe also says nothing of principal photography. It does mention the release date of "winter 2009" and cites http://www.tvskyline.com as a source which in turn claims "summer 2009" as a release date.
- No disagreement. Transalations problems at their end.
- Flanders Animation states this of the production stage of the film: "First, though, they need to finish The Texas Rangers in time for its Christmas release - and there is no time to spare". The article is dated Summer 2008 and clearly alludes to Christmas of 2008 as a slated release date.
- Simply an earlier article alluding to a hoped-for date. Later articles modified this "hope".
- CG Channel contains no information other than a single sentence: "Luke and Lucy is a new CG Animated Featured Film co-directed by Wim Bien & Mark Mertens". No dates or confirmation of the stage of prosuction.
- Agreed. Simply another "limited" English source.
- 3DM3 is a forum and connot be possible considered a reliable source for absolutely anything.
- Yes, a forum. Not even suggesting it be used as a source. Simply being "offered" to perhaps pint in which direction further research might be taken.
- Flanders Image gives no information other than unspecifically saying that the film is "in production" (what stage of production?) and that the release date is 2009.
- Again, only another offering of the limitations of available English sources.
- You listed these sources and followed it up with your opinion that they "tend to indicate notability". I guess you and I are at an impasse because I seem to be having a hard time communicating that I have no issues with the film's notability; you really don't need to prove it to me. I have an issue with reliability of sources that have no solid information on the stage of the film's production and whose estimated release dates have been in constant shift. Basically, the project is notable but there is no proof of the film's progression being at a stage acceptable by WP:NFF. Had we had this discussion last summer, I might have been told "the film will be released this Christmas as per this". Not much is different right now. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No impasse, as we are in agreement at to its notability. It would seem then that since that more important issue of notability is resolved, the article be "kept" and so tagged for expansion and soucing... a matter for WP:CLEANUP. Yes? And a discussion of sources can then take place on the article's talk page?
- However, one last comment before I retire from this discussion and leave it to a closing Admin... since several of the non-English sources DO seem to be quite in-depth, i remembered Babblefish. Dreaming Moon] and Le Film d'Animation Avenir have text and actual images of the film. Using Yahoo babblefish, the text shows the film as IN Production, and far past the "negotiating or planning" stage. Using Babblefish (yikes) to tranlate the text of the article at Leusderkrant, I learned the film 's voiceover work is going on now through March 6. Most rewarding toward indicating the film's state ofproduction, is a Babblefish translation of Movie Machine which announces the cast, states that the film "has been" directed (past tense) by Mertens and Wim Bien, announces that voice work IS taking place (confirming the Leusderkrant information), and gives an in-depth storyline as opposed to a brief synopsis. These may be what you wish. I invite you to Babblefish them yourself... and hold your laughter at the rough job it does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And when I get home from work this evening, and if no one else has done so, I will myself source the article and bring it line with film MOS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Dream Focus and Schmidt. EagleFan (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has now been expanded, and sourced to show that voice overs for the film are in now underway. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per MichaelQSchmidt's contributions to the article. Ikip (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vapourware film. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 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 00:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supermusic[edit]
- Supermusic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possibly WP:MADEUP, article has had no content edits in over a year, zero main space links to it, two of the EL's are the same and another is not found -- last one is a MySpace page. In addition it seems to ramble about nothing including 'super instruments' which aren't even explained. I've watched this for the whole time in case something substantial came of it, but nothing ever did. Finally, the creator has edits to only this page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google search shows up no sources, and reference to it being a postmodern form makes me nervous (postmodernism being, it seems, a favourite target of hoaxers). JulesH (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: mostly unreferenced original research, no widespread usage. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 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 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sankarshan Das Adhikari[edit]
- Sankarshan Das Adhikari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a self advertisement page. There are hundreds gurus in ISKCON. Nothing notable about this person or no special subject's. Wikidās ॐ 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - very poor and nothing specifically about the subject. Wikidās ॐ 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ism schism (talk) 13:06, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News (8:00pm Summary)[edit]
- BBC News (8:00pm Summary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. I propose there is nothing notable about a 90 seconds news bulletin. Computerjoe's talk 11:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable as is 60 Seconds, they are both regular well known updates. BBC News (8:00pm Summary) should better known as it airs during primetime on the BBC's main channel and therefore should be allowed it's own page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.190.207 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the bulletin has received coverage by independent sources. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I fail to see any assertion of notability. Should there be an article for the 4:30pm summary as well? I hear that targets school kids.... --DFS454 (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not even the BBC considers it notable: the Radio Times only lists it as, "Followed by News Update". (The Radio Times, by the way, is a BBC magazine.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:44, 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 speedy keep. We've overturned the NAC, however this isn't going to close as anything but keep, and there really is no reason to continue the AfD. It may need some re-writing, but that's a matter for editing, not AfD. StarM 02:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Sullivan (producer)[edit]
- Kevin Sullivan (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
minor TV producer. Only seems to be notable due to uncited Emmy awards, yet does not show up Here in list of Emmy award winners. Honey And Thyme (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I get the following results from that search:
- OUTSTANDING CHILDREN'S PROGRAM - 1993 AVONLEA - DIS - TRUDY GRANT, Executive Producer; BRIAN LESLIE PARKER, Line Producer; KEVIN SULLIVAN, Executive Producer
- OUTSTANDING CHILDREN'S PROGRAM - 1986 Anne of Green Gables Wonderworks - PBS - Ian McDougall, Producer; Lee Polk, Executive Producer; Kevin Sullivan, Executive Producer; Kevin Sullivan, ProducerProducer; Kevin Sullivan, Executive Producer; Kevin Sullivan, Producer
- Maybe you want to rethink this nomination? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep following Carbuncle's suggestion. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as multiple award winner, as noted. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was non-admin-closed by Dusti after being open for around 14 hours. Per WP:DPR#NAC and a request at DRV, I am reverting the closure and will be relisting to today's AFD. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No issue at all. NYT [21] "The director, producer and, with Stuart McLean, co-writer is Kevin Sullivan, the Canadian film maker who was widely praised for the mini-series Anne of Green Gables and its sequel, Anne of Avonlea. Mr. Sullivan clearly has a keen affinity for brink-of-adulthood tales. " Collect (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - yet another example of the ethnocentricity of some editors. If he were an American producer this would not even be a debate.Esasus (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I hate all the Canadians. I think all their pages should be deleted. Starting with Kevin Sullivan. Honey And Thyme (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be more efficient to start a single AfD including all articles on those despicable Canadians... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, this should never have been an AfD, as far as I can see, he easily meets the requirements. Artypants, Babble 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Meets notability requirements probably even without the Emmy nominations. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article needs rewriting, and the subject needs to stop editing it in various guises. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 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 00:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rod Wilks[edit]
- Rod Wilks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I Prodded for deletion but tag removed by author. Article is unreferenced and about a player who fails WP:ATHLETE having only played at school level. Paste Let’s have a chat. 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Athlete. --Ged UK (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has played at the highest amateur level of his sport(NCAA Division 1-A/FBS Football).
Plus, under the specified guidelines, that would mean Matt Barkley's Wiki article would need to be deleted as well, seeing as he has never played for a top level amateur/college club.
Oh yes, and it is referenced as well. I just don't know how to do those tags right beside the facts. Nickknx865 (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is now properly referenced, I think Nickknx865 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A quote from the article: "Wilks had limited playing time at Tennessee in 2008, but some think he will play a very important part in the future of UT football under new head coach Lane Kiffin." It's an attempt at notability that fails wp:crystal ball. If he becomes a notable player, of course he'll deserve an entry. Until then, he does not. And, in any case, a collection of one-liners is clearly unencyclopedic and certainly doesn't belong in an article about anybody. Zeng8r (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll say this. He HAS played, at the highest amateur level of his sport, which is what the guidelines specify. Armanti Edwards plays in FCS, the 2nd highest level of amateur football. Therefore, Matt Barkley and Armanti Edwards are 2 players who's article meets the criteria for deletion.
And I haven't done a single joke on there, so that's not my problem. Nickknx865 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. College football does not satisfy the amateur clause of WP:ATHLETE, which is intended to capture the equivalent of Olympic athletes; even FCS football is nowadays more of a minor league to the NFL than the highest level of its own sport, though it hasn't always been this way -- at one time college football was the top tier of competition available, but no longer. College players can establish their own notability, but this player clearly hasn't done that. I have deleted the unencyclopedic Jokes section and reformatted the references. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, wouldn't any college football player have to be deleted then? It's a logical question.
My interpretation was this. You have to be on the top level of amateur sports to be included, which is what Mr. Wilks is, an NCAA D-1A athlete. Did not think that pro sports were included in that individual rule, which means the guidelines are slightly misleading. Nickknx865 (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Div-I athlete notablility question was discussed at length here, in a deletion discussion for an article about a very similar player. Basically, it's impractical and unwarranted to have an entry on each of the thousands of Div-I football players out there. That article was deleted, by the way, and this one should be too, and for the same reasons. If he turns out to be a college star, it can be restored. Zeng8r (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After quickly reading over that talk page, it becomes clear to me that these are two totally different cases. Steve Gatena was a walk-on who never received a scholarship, and played on the scout team. Wilks is is a scholarship player who is on the actual "team" team, and plays, although not a whole ton of time.
- If Jonathan Crompton meets the criteria for a Wiki article, then so does Wilks. Nickknx865 (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other player was a former walk-on who later received a scholly and started a couple games at USC. Here's the meat of the deletion argument, which appplies here as well:
If Wikipedia were to permit all Division I-FBS (top level) scholarship athletes, we'd have approximately [120 (teams) x 85 (NCAA-allowed scholarship players)] 10,200 new articles (at least). If you include walk-ons, that 10,200 number increases with very little room for any opinion on notability. A line must be drawn, and I think this line can be agreed upon. This article is basically a well-crafted vanity page; this article appears to be the work of either the subject, friend/relative, or PR firm. If it were allowed, any player who successfully walks onto any team would have a free ticket into Wikipedia. I could see an overrun of hopeful punters and kickers with the ability to create a "pretty" but ultimately non-notable page. College football is not a black/white "include all/delete all" situation, and this player falls onto the non-notable side.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secret Tournament[edit]
- Secret Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An advertisement, with no indication as to why it is any more notable than any other advertisement. Michael Johnson (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep. I think that the appearance of so many soccer glitterati in one advert probably does make it more notable than most, and I think there should be some sources out there around fees and filming etc that would help demonstrate this. --Ged UK (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Upgrading to a proper keep. Gilliam involved swings it for me. --Ged UK (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability conferred by the inclusion of multiple non-trivial references by independent reliable sources. Footballer ensembles in adverts haven't been novel for years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are 29000 ghits for the tournament.
Added a BBC news reference. Discovered the director of the commercials is Terry Gilliam. Given the number of hits, the prestige of the personnel involved, the context of the ads running in the '02 World Cup, WP:GAAAC, and the promise of the article, this should be a keepVulture19 (talk) 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not a BBC news entry: it is from h2g2, which is no more authoritative a source than Wikipedia: arguably less so, as it has no monitoring of verifiability of content. The small print on the page says "Most of the content on this site is created by h2g2's Researchers, who are members of the public." So even Gilliam's involvement, although I have no grounds to doubt it, is not meaningfully verified. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for the alert, and I will remove the BBC ref from the article, I won't remove the assertion, however, as digging a little deeper appears to confirm Gilliam's involvement. Just don't have time right now to do any significant work on the page. (Don't really have time to engage in debate, either, but it is so edifying....)Vulture19 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth noting is that the music in the ad was a remix of obscure Elvis Presley song "A Little Less Conversation", which off the back of the ad shot straight to number 1 in the UK..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that it was a tournament, or that there were matches, or where it took place, or what degree of secrecy was involved. It is a series of edited clips of players doing tricks in a studio somewhere. Article full of untenable claims (is Sylvain Wiltord verifiably among the top 24 players in the world?), and an article that serves no purpose other than to draw attention to an advertisement is arguably itself promotional. When and if an independent documentary is made about the making of the advert, then there might be something worth salvaging, but not as things stand. The only reference is to a replay of the ad on youtube: that is proof of existence, not of notability. Kevin McE (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - noitulovE, an article about an advert, is a Featured Article, so there clearly isn't an issue with the concept in general. If similar sources exist for this one (and they surely must for such a high-profile campaign) then I think the article could be rewritten into something half decent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I don't think the issue whether the advert was, in fact, and advert, or that it was real are in question here. The advert appears to have excellent notability among soccer fans (I'm a casual fan and I recall the ad). It is also a series of adverts, not just a on off. The discussion here has also lead me to some other interesting facts, including the Gilliam connection and it's ability to propel a 20+ year old song to a #1 position on a record chart. Furthermore, the article doesn't play up the commercial interests of Pepsi, only references it as needed. Since there is no blatant commercialism, why is there a rush to delete a one day old article? Also, precedence - there are 101 commercials listed under category:television_commercials , and this is at least as relevant as the majority of those. Vulture19 (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - According to this article from the Independent, the Scorpion KO campaign was, at the time, Nike's costliest advertising campaign ever. Cage tournaments similar to that in the advert were held all over the world (including in Singapore, where I attended), and the whole thing truly launched the Nike Mercurial Vapor brand onto the market. There was also a follow-up "Rematch" advert, and the background music (A Little Less Conversation by Elvis Presley and remixed by JXL) for both adverts was even released as a CD single. – PeeJay 13:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This book I found on Google Books also gives a fairly deep assessment of the advert and its associated promotional campaign. – PeeJay 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another source, this time from Time Magazine.
- Is this a reliable source? The site calls itself a "Terry Gilliam fanzine", but it seems legit. – PeeJay 13:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a couple more sources here, here and here. – PeeJay 07:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PeeJay. GiantSnowman 14:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Most of the arguments in support of "keep" seem to be along the lines of "lots of famous people were involved on it" or "Nike spent lots of money on it". Lots of ads also use famous music, often sparking a revival in their popularity. In all these cases maybe the ad should be mentioned on the relevant articles, if notable enough. But relationships do not confer notability. Surely the question should be what, if anything, in this ad, changed television advertising? If nothing, then surely it is not notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Putting aside that this article was proposed for deletion exactly 78 minutes after creation, what has been determined since the AfD came up is
- A significant number of the greatest players in the world were involved
- The series was directed by a notable, critically acclaimed director
- Given the above may confer no notability, at the time it was produced it was among the most expensive advertising campaigns, ever.
- Documented, both through the web and through the personal experience of an editor, involvement of an estimated 1 million people world wide as a direct result of this advert
- Advert was at least partly responsible for a 20+year old song reaching #1 in the UK
- Notable relationship to the 2002 World Cup
- Spawned a video game
- Precedence - the category for television commercial articles contains about 100 entries.
- The article itself is not an advertisement, and appears to have a very NPOV.
- EDIT One more thing - in the articles for
quite a fewsome of the people named in the article, their involvement is noted.
- Now, all of these points may be argued, but at some point they can be cited given the collaborative efforts of many different editors. In general, though, I would say it takes more than 78 minutes to get involvement.
Vulture19 (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The length of time an article is up has nothing to do with it's potential notability. I still don't see how the advert is notable. Many ads are expensive, "star" well known personalities, and have prominent directors. The fact there are "only" 100 ads in the category "Television Commercials" out of the thousands that are made every year indicates that ads are not just notable in their own right. Surely we need a reliable source to indicate notability, for instance has the ad received an award? has it been written up in the relevant professional media as a notable ad? And no, we shouldn't leave articles about non-notable subjects hanging around in the hope that somebody comes along some time with some evidence of notability. --Michael Johnson (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of sufficent independent reliable third-party coverage means if fails the notability test. - fchd (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of reliable third-party indepedent coverage found so far -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no reason why adverts can't gain notability. Sufficient RS exist. --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well known and highly notable series of adverts. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 25 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 00:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fritz the Cat (producer)[edit]
- Fritz the Cat (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Although I feel this person is notable, he has received absolutely zero coverage in third party sources, and little is known overall about him. There is not much that could be said of his work that couldn't be said in the article for the group he most commonly works with, or those for their albums. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lack of sources on him violates general WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC are violated since the bands he's worked with are not multiple and important. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, hasn't worked with notable bands. This may change in the future of course, in which case it can be recreated. --Ged UK (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Pretty much all of the bands he has worked with have had albums that have charted on the Billboard 200 or Top Independent Albums. Regardless of whether or not Fritz is notable, the bands he has worked with are. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is credited as a co-writer[22] on a number of charting albums, including Hatchet Warrior and Dirty History, which might have satisfied WP:MUSIC at one time, but which no longer seems to. IMHO, Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards performers that discounts the equally important role of composers and producers. <shrug> dissolvetalk 12:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; insufficient 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 03:57, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shehryar Ahmed Khan[edit]
- Shehryar Ahmed Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability Issues, Personality not notable to be added in Wikipedia BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO - the word "upcoming" gives it all away, doesn't it? -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N and WP:BIO. Themfromspace (talk) 04:55, 24 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danny Corcoran (ranger)[edit]
- Danny Corcoran (ranger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Again, while interesting, Wikipedia is not a memorial and I'm not sure he's notable enough. I really don't see how adding the ISBN number really changes things but fine. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. However, if he is indeed a popular legend in the area, the article may focus more on giving that some secondary sources, in which case I may change my vote to keep. For now, it's delete, though. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I would suggest, if you meet the criteria and justification as a subject of a book; should be notability enough. After a quick search I had also found this link where it shows he was the first casualty for what was then the police force for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Newfoundland Rangers.--HJKeats (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep 87000 ghits on the term danny corcoran ranger, which isn't bad for someone who existed long before the internet.Vulture19 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The amazing and tragic story of Danny Corcoran is notable enough to have stayed in the consciousness of Canadians for over 70 years. Esasus (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As others have said he is the subject of public interest. The article just needs to be improved. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete self-evidently not notable per our articulated GNG standards. Close should discount unfounded assertions of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Central subject of an entire book that is recommended to "be in the library of every search and rescue professional, career or volunteer." by an American SAR Co-ordinator[23], and part of Canadian folklore. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. The two sources seem to meet WP:N. ONEEVENT is harder, but I'm having problems !voting to delete a topic that has a whole book about it. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bushra Khalil[edit]
- Bushra Khalil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Like I said before, not notable other than a single incident. Probably somewhat notable years ago but lasting impact a concern. At best, possibly a redirect to Trial of Saddam Hussein. I'm really not sure how the fact that she graduated from Beruit University really changes things, but fine. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and possibly merge to Trial of Saddam Hussein, per WP:ONEEVENT. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Lilac Soul. --Ged UK (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep - Is Wikipedia only for notable Americans? I am concerned by the large number of articles based on international subjects that are being proposed for deletion. Bushra Khalil is a notable, highly skilled and well known international criminal lawyer. Ricky81682 seems to sugest that there is a time limit on notability. If that is the case then Wikipedia should be removing the articles for all of the lawyers attached to the O.J. Simpson murder trial (and the Lindbergh kidnapping doesn't seem to still have that "lasting impact" of notability as it once promised to have). If she were an American this would not even be a debate. Esasus (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability goes beyond just one event; she represented multiple notable figures of the Hussein regime through multiple trials, and apparently had a prior political career, or at least an attempt at one. I have added some reliable sources to the article to satisfy the general notability guideline. I agree with Esasus that there's at least some concern regarding systemic bias here; just because Western news outlets overload with coverage of her sensational conduct in the Hussein trial, it doesn't follow that's all she's notable for. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that Wikipedia isn't only for notables of the anglosphere or western world. However, all the article describes (or at least described) was her role in the Saddam trial. If she is notable beyond, e.g. by her political career, she certainly merits an article, but that article should, then, describe this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the new sources added by Baileypalblue since the opening of the AfD. A NYT article of which she was the main subject certainly helps. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Kuijers[edit]
- David Kuijers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. I'm just not sure he's a notable enough painter. Mere existence of his work at The Cape Gallery ([24]) doesn't seem like enough. I cannot find any neutral third-party review on Google but that could be more of a systemic bias problem than anything. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would find it sad for the article to be deleted. David Kuijers is an active painter, who has received important commissions. A book has been published about his work, which is also an indication of importance. And I fear that the distance of South Africa from the UK or the US, and probably the fact that there is less spin over there than here about contemporary art, plays against him in this dispute : an artist of his standing in the US or the UK would probably be recognised as above the notability threshold. Baronnet (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:BIO. Incidentally, as a reply to Baronnet, the only book about him is written by himself (at least as it stands in the article). If he has important commissions, though, go ahead and add that to the article with reliable sources, and perhaps I'll change my vote to keep if you establish notability through those means. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Is Wikipedia only for notable Americans? I am concerned by the large number of articles based on international subjects that are being proposed for deletion. David Kuijers is a notable and published artist. His art is displayed prestigious galleries and he has had solo exhibits. I agree with Baronnet, if he were an American this would not even be a debate. Esasus (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, I participate in CSDs, prods, and AfDs of several Americans. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep True, it is hard to judge his notability from over here. For one thing we don't know anything about the Cape Gallery. However it would be better to err on the side of keeping for the sake of people who might be interested in him. The article does no harm. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just doesn't pass notability guidelines or have sources. Just because an artist is in a gallery or in a book (by himself) doesn't make him notable. Maybe if there were sources it would be a different matter. Richard Hock (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As nominator, my concern was again, yes, he from South Africa, but the only thing we know is he's at the Cape Gallery and he himself wrote a book about his art. Does that mean that anyone outside the western world should be presumed to be notable? It's entirely possible for there to be a non-notable artist that's from South Africa. I'm not sure where people get the idea that if he were an American, he would remain. Those three commissions may be notable but again I'm not sure. He completed his schooling at a school, who's notability I don't know about, won an "Best Painter" award which is vague, followed with a dipolma from "Cape Town Technikon", who's notability I again don't know about. He now paints full-time, won three commissions which I don't know how to value (two hotels and a hospital are enough for notability?), has a gallery exhibit of his work and wrote a book himself about his art. I haven't been able to find neutral third-party sources, which in the end I thought would be the basic requirement. If people feel that someone who has a gallery that exists of their work and wrote a book themselves is enough for notability, either in the US or outside, that's fine but I strongly disagree. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the notability of Cape Town Technikon, created in 1920 : there is an article about it, except that it has now merged with another institution to create Cape Peninsula University of Technology in 2005. It is "just" one of the main higher education institutions of the Western Cape province in South Africa. Baronnet (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm willing to acknowledge that. Added the link as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the notability of Cape Town Technikon, created in 1920 : there is an article about it, except that it has now merged with another institution to create Cape Peninsula University of Technology in 2005. It is "just" one of the main higher education institutions of the Western Cape province in South Africa. Baronnet (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Hi Ricky. Please excuse these comments for probably being a bit out of line. I may be paranoid but I can't help feeling that one reason Mr Kuijers's article is being AfDed is because as a white South African he is a "politically incorrect" person. I may well be 100% wrong on this. However if you could point out some "politically correct" persons whose bios you AfDed I would feel a lot better. This has nothing to do with keeping this article or not. Thanks.) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded at your talk page. I don't think ad hominem arguments need to be continued here. I will repeat: I listed this article because this article doesn't seem notable enough. The fact that he's not a "politically correct" person in your mind didn't even cross my mind as I freely admitted that there could be an argument for systemic bias. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Hi Ricky. Please excuse these comments for probably being a bit out of line. I may be paranoid but I can't help feeling that one reason Mr Kuijers's article is being AfDed is because as a white South African he is a "politically incorrect" person. I may well be 100% wrong on this. However if you could point out some "politically correct" persons whose bios you AfDed I would feel a lot better. This has nothing to do with keeping this article or not. Thanks.) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence whatsoever of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:42, 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 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don Baker (political scientist)[edit]
- Don Baker (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a BLP with no sources and little in the way of asserting notability. Teaching at a high school and working for the State Department do not make one notable. While a C.V. is presented, without knowing more about these publications it's impossible to judge whether this person meets WP:PROF. A quick Google doesn't yield much, but the name is common so good results may be buried. Oren0 (talk) 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think you've misread the article. It says he has taught at "the University of Alabama, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Webster University, Pulaski Technical College, the University of Central Arkansas, and the Arkansas Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented", none of which are high schools (although the latter is a residential program aimed at students of high-school age). It's hard to find any sources about him due to difficulty finding relevant ones among the irrelevant, but I do note that several of the publications the article claims he has written for are notable ones. JulesH (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy, I've tagged it as such as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Don-Baker-(political-scientist)
- Not speedy. That is a copy of the Wikipedia article, not vice versa. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the sake of people who might be interested in him, the article does no harm. Esasus (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete simply doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. An 'emerging' political scientist is one thing, a notable one is another... Richard Hock (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Esasus - please look at WP:NOHARM - "the article does no harm" is not a valid argument in deletion debates. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the article establishes quite a few publications, but those are primary sources and not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. However, it is not impossible that he actually is notable, and I'd prefer starting off with a {{notability}} tag. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 15:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete A person can do notable academic work even if the person is teaching in a high school. Writing multiple articles of major standard encyclopedias might be notable work, but I would really like to see a more exact list of them. Scopus does not cover this subject very well, but the paper in J conflict Resolution 45:661-87 (2001) found there had 25 later references to it. I do not want to prejudice an article solely on the basis of it saying"an emerging..." , but such wording is usually an indication of not yet being notable. DGG (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am very willing to be convinced that this individual is notable. I wish that some of the people who are saying keep would add some refs. I just don't see how a BLP article can be allowed to stand for a significant amount of time with zero sources. Oren0 (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The only link I could find for his pubs was to his 1999 dissertation, which has zero citations in Google Scholar. In WorldCat, there is only one entry, again to his 1999 dissertation, which is held by only 1 library worldwide (Univ. of Alabama). Google News and Books searches yield similarly insignificant results, after elimination of false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Is not a well-known political scientist and current publication record does not satisfy notability criteria for academics. One of the journals mentioned is somewhat widely read, but not enough to confer sufficient notability by simply publishing in it. There might be a case for keeping it if his time in foreign service was particularly notable, but there is no evidence of this. Jvr725 (talk) 09:38, 24 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 00:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester United's 2008-09 season progress[edit]
- Manchester United's 2008-09 season progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed PROD. Original rationale was "Redundant to Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09." I concur, and additioanlly note that we don't need a separate "at-a-glance tally chart" for Man U fans to see what competitions the club could still win..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original prodder. – PeeJay 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are just against me. If another person created this article, you people wouldn't proposed it to be deleted. Syjytg (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I've never encountered you before in my life, don't make assumptions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not talking about you. Syjytg (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Camw said, don't take things so personally. I would be requesting this article to be deleted regardless of who created it. Most of your other edits have been contrary to the MOS in some way, which is why they have been reverted. – PeeJay 08:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you not requesting Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09 to be deleted? It has similiar structure to mine. Syjytg (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because it was already here before you started what amounts to an unnecessary content fork. It's also much larger and more comprehensive, as well as better written..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits can be done to this article to make it better. Syjytg (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case it would end up looking exactly the same as Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09, which would make it especially redundant. – PeeJay 08:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is deleted, I will quit Wikipedia because I feel bitten. Syjytg (talk) 08:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case it would end up looking exactly the same as Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09, which would make it especially redundant. – PeeJay 08:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edits can be done to this article to make it better. Syjytg (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because it was already here before you started what amounts to an unnecessary content fork. It's also much larger and more comprehensive, as well as better written..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you not requesting Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09 to be deleted? It has similiar structure to mine. Syjytg (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Camw said, don't take things so personally. I would be requesting this article to be deleted regardless of who created it. Most of your other edits have been contrary to the MOS in some way, which is why they have been reverted. – PeeJay 08:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not talking about you. Syjytg (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I've never encountered you before in my life, don't make assumptions -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are just against me. If another person created this article, you people wouldn't proposed it to be deleted. Syjytg (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Redundant and should be deleted per nominators rationale. To the article creator above, please don't take it personally. Camw (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He deleted and reverted more than 50% of my edits. Obviously he is against me. Syjytg (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you see it that way, please Assume Good Faith on his behalf as it seems to me that he is trying to help the encyclopedia, just as you are. If you can take a step back from feeling like you own your contributions and articles, it will be much less stressful and work can be done on moving the encyclopedia forward. Camw (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He deleted and reverted more than 50% of my edits. Obviously he is against me. Syjytg (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - article is redundant. GiantSnowman 09:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've left a message on User talk:Syjytg encouraging him/her not to take offense and to keep making good faith edits.-Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not against Syjytg, but this article is redundant, it exists as the Man U season article. --Ged UK (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As we have this, this article is unneccessary. (And I'm not against Sytytg.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original prod. Is an unnecessary fork from the 2008-09 season article. Syjytg, nobody has anything against you, its just the information shown is already available elsewhere. Eddie6705 (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. As a side note, the original author should be encouraged to assist in the Manchester United F.C. season 2008-09 article.Vulture19 (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Should we perhaps consider changing this article into a redirect to the pre-existing 2008-09 season article instead of deleting it completely? The only issue that I could think of with regard to that idea is that "Manchester United's 2008-09 season progress" might not be a valid search term. – PeeJay 08:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it must stay as it is though I hardly comprehend that sentence. Syjytg (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Syjytg, you keep saying that you want the article to stay, but unless you are able to give valid reasons for why it is an important contribution to Wikipedia, and not plainly redundant to the existing article, it all just comes across as WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a valid argument for keeping an article. If the problem is that this is a page you've created for your own pleasure, with content that is primarily interesting to you, may I suggest that you simply copy it (without categories, though) to your own userspace, in a subpage along the lines of User:Syjytg/Manchester United's 2008-09 season progress. Note that you'll have to copy it rather than move it, though. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it must stay as it is though I hardly comprehend that sentence. Syjytg (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant page for which the info has an appropriate home at Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09. Peanut4 (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant — Matt Crypto 12:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Redundant page. Per nom. — neuro(talk) 09:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Syjytg, I've offered several friendly words of advice to you in the past, at your talk page. Perhaps you'll take it well from me that this article should be deleted and such a decision has nothing to do with how I feel about you personally. I too hope you don't leave, but if you're going to get so upset about it, sadly, perhaps it's best if you do. --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not convinced we even need one season about any single club's individual seasons, but sure as eggs is eggs we don't need two. - fchd (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per original PROD. Also, there may be copyright issues, but I'm not sure if the Premier League's copyright on fixtures extends to results. May be something to check for future reference. Krytenia (talk) 00:27, 25 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 00:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vinayak Doval[edit]
- Vinayak Doval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Based on the sources and a Google search, this person does not seem to be WP:BIO notable. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Might be notable some day, but not yet. "upcoming artist" is a warning indication of present non-notability. . DGG (talk) 08:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable at the moment. --Ged UK (talk) 12:25, 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 Transwiki. MBisanz talk 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jaghana[edit]
- Jaghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probably should be translocated to wiktionary Shadowjams (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auparishtaka. - Mgm|(talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated on Auparishtaka, transwiki and we'll talk. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 22:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xclamation point 06:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the others, copy over to wikitionary and then list as redirect. Chaldor (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki Seems pretty open and shut. SNOWBALL? Computerjoe's talk 11:59, 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. In a vote, this would be closed as no consensus; however, after examining the arguments presented by each side, reading the article, and preforming a Google search, I've determined that the subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion within Wikipedia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Near-birth experience[edit]
- Near-birth experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Almost complete WP:BOLLOCKS, this article is essentially about obscure ideas that have not received the notice of third-party independent sources. The books that are used as "references" are simply books about psychic communication with your baby or regression psychoanalysis. No need for this kooky article: we can include the "information" elsewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Artw (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator appears to be proposing to merge the article, but doesn't say where to. A merge discussion should be considered on the article's talk page. I note that the article suffers from NPOV and OR problems (it reports fringe theories as real occurrences and uses real scientific evidence in an argument to support the theories without attributing the argument itself to a reliable source), but these problems can be fixed without deleting the article. JulesH (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, as said WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a criterion for deletion. It may well be bollocks, but it is certainly highly published bollocks, and as such, still notable.-Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Out of Body experiences are notable. Birth is notable. Birth involves extreme physical stress. Extreme physical stress is a recognized catalyst for OBE reports. The web has no shortage of childbirth-specific OBE reports. WP:IDONTLIKEIT. K2709 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - IDONTLIKEIT may not be grounds for deletion, but the serious notability and OR issues are, as that is all an article on this subject appears likely to ever be. There's nothing in this article that represents a solid foundation to improve upon, so deletion is the way to go here. ClovisPt (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The term definitely exists, but it is not consistently well-defined. A few authors appear to use it in conflicting idiosyncratic ways. Maybe this is enough to have an article covering the several definitions, but I would rather wait until the movement coalesces ... or does not. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, as said WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NEUTRAL requires to represent a variety of views, specifically if there are reliable sources as is clearly the case confirming notability. Possibly needs to merge to avoid forking if will not grow in time. Wikidās ॐ 18:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Shouldn't there at least be some third party coverage? This is orderline original research.--Peephole (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is original research since the topic has not been the subject of verifiable, third-party, reliable sources.[25] -Atmoz (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can not be OR since it is the same title as quite a few publications. [26] it gives about 600 exact hits even in Google books and ten times as much in Google. It could be a kuku science, but is certainly covered by some sufficient sources to stay, question if you were to merge it, where will you merge it into. Wikidās ॐ 19:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Somewhat sad, but this seems notable. As we have to allow articles about UFO's and the like, we need to keep articles about subjects like this which, while probably bollocks, has enough sources to demonstrate notability. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A WP:SYNTH fusion of material from books by three authors, not one of whom rises to the level of notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nonsense, but there seem to be sources for it. With respect to some of the arguments: The references for an article do not have to be notable, We make Wp articles precisely by describing material found elsewhere--this is not OR. A Wikipedia article topic does not have to be the subject of academic sources of the sort found in Google Scholar--most of Wikipedia will not be found there. And not looking notable equals IDONTLIOKEIT. DGG (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, the references do have to have some level of notability (as defined by WP:RS). If a subject attracts no interest outside four books in its immediate context, there is absolutely no reason to have a separate article about that concept. If I start an article about myself, I have to prove that there are sources outside my own blog and fan-site who indicate what my significance is [before you ask: I don't have either a blog or a fan site]. Dahn (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete SYNTHy and doesn't look at all notable Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and stubify or otherwise indicate this covers a fringe area. It meets WP:N with sources in the article. But the article would lead one to believe that this is commonly accepted theory. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no valid, scientific sources. - Biruitorul Talk 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obscurely marginal, even within the fringe context of parapsychology. No notability outside this context. Whatever take parapsychologists have on the matter could be merged as curiosa into Pre-birth communication (which is currently a poor excuse for an article, but maybe someone will pay interest). I can see it hanging in some corner there, together with, say, Salvador Dalí's claim to have experienced such things. Dahn (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a science encyclopedia, Wikipedia should be the sum of all knowledge including fringe topics. Besides, sources are available to establish the notability of this subject, Google Books. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:28, 24 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 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mist (paranormal)[edit]
- Mist (paranormal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seriously? This is not a recognized phenomenon and I couldn't find third-party independent sources who acknowledged this was a common meme to be noted. Ghost hunter terminology clearinghouse Wikipedia is not. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Strangely enough I agree. Spooky! Artw (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just, delete. Really. --Ged UK (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be a fairly common theme in evaluation of photographs that are claimed to be of ghosts. References are available in Goodwyn Ghost Worlds Llewellyn Worldwide 2007, Karl & World An Illustrated History of the Haunted World New Holland 2007(which provides some non-supernatural explanations for the appearance of this phenomenon), Hines Gateway of the Gods Numina Media Arts 2007, Warren How to Hunt Ghosts: A Practical Guide Simon & Schuster 2003, and numerous other similar books. Needs to be edited to reflect both viewpoints of it (i.e. that while it is interpreted by some as a supernatural phenomenon, it is regarded by others as explained by one of several possible scientific explanations), but this should be easily possible with the sources I have identified above. JulesH (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Must agree with JulesH. Suggest strong clean up. Who ya gonna call?! Computerjoe's talk 11:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, although I suppose it is faintly possible this "information" belongs in another article. ClovisPt (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to Ghost hunting. That article already mentions mist, so a merge would probably just be a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources at all, ugh. --Peephole (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge on basis of non-notability. Probably a redirect would do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of sources. BBiiis08 (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the sources cited above, there's also pages 158–160 of ISBN 9780813191249, which debunks several oft-cited examples of this mist. There are plenty of sources to be had, on both sides of the issue. There are even sources in the pro-paranormal camp that point out how many such images have mundane explanations, such as page 194 of ISBN 9780978559106 and pages 52–54 of ISBN 9780557027729. ScienceApologist clearly hasn't looked for sources at all, despite xyr claims to the contrary. Several other editors clearly haven't even read the AFD discussion that they are adding to. There seem to be a lot of no-effort rationales here. I suspect that (alas!) a desire to push a point of view is overriding the correct approach to writing an encyclopaedia, and the correct approach to AFD, which is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources. One only has to look at Orb (photographic) (which used to be Orb (paranormal), note) to see the potential here for this subject, given the sources at hand (which are not even all of the sources available). This is a stub with scope for expansion. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, we do not delete in such cases. Zero points to the nominator for once again putting zero effort into improving articles on subjects that xe does not like, but instead actively working towards lessening the encyclopaedia by removing them. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If no serious discussion of this "phenomenon" aside from passing mentions in the books cited above exists, then there's not enough coverage to base an article on. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has been shown to be wrong about the existence of sources, notice. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What precisely should I be noticing? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination has been shown to be wrong about the existence of sources, notice. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no references, and they are especially needed in a case like this. - Biruitorul Talk 01:36, 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 snowball keep, 2nd AfD won't be different. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loren Coleman[edit]
- Loren Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a notable individual. Obviously WP:VANITY article. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It wasn't created as a vanity article, and it's not hopelessly bad. Worst case scenario, we can make it a stub. As demonstrated at the past AFD, there's plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so a good article is definitely possible. This guy is probably the most famous living proponent of cryptozoology. I've actually been planning on working on this page, but I've never got around to it.
- Just wondering, did you look at the last AFD? You should at least make some effort to refer to the arguments presented there. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AfD. Artw (talk) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per first AfD. Nothing's changed really, don't know why this was nominated the second time. --Ged UK (talk) 09:41, 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 00:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian Ley[edit]
- Lithuanian Ley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
original research. References are to tourist pamphlets and a single sentence in a book. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No explanation of who this G. Porutis was who first described this as long ago as wait, 2006 - that long ago! Not notable in any meaningful way without mention by a primary reliable source. Mfield (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A non-notable fringe theory. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per all the above. ClovisPt (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research. --Peephole (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources only point to one, obscure author. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. OR. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:27, 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. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC) keep, and I need to stop sleepwalk-closing AFDs. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artifact Software[edit]
- Artifact Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Commercial software company. Author implies notability by association, mainly being founded by former employees of another non-notable company (this is not the same Sequoia that creates voting systems) that was acquired by Citrix. Financing and a blurb at Dr. Dobbs round up the sources. I don't believe this meets WP:CORP in any way, there seems to be some WP:COI involved as tagged by a patroller, and article was not eligible for speedy (IMO). Pulling into AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 01:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Claims to be a provides application lifecycle management and project management software, delivered via Internet or Intranet using the software as a service (SaaS) deployment model. Use of these vague and too familiar buzzwords shows that this is a non-consumer online business without any showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. I will follow-up shortly. -Derek Vansant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvansant (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP. Thanks again for giving me the opportunity to respond. Let me field objections one by one:
1) Conflict of interest
- I am the primary author. I’m still new to Wikipedia, but as I learn more and more about how things should be done I realize that I should have disclosed that I am an employee of Artifact Software on the talk page. It was not my intention to be sneaky. My user name is dvansant, my real name is Derek Vansant. I originally thought that so long as I wrote from a neutral perspective and referenced everything, I would be fine. In my defense, how many people include the complete and utter failure of their first product when writing about the history of their company ;-).
While I may work for Artifact Software, I do believe I have adhered to Wikipedia’s policy on neutral writing.
From Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: “Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.”
Please let me know if you believe anything I’ve included comes across as promotional and I will remove it immediately.
2) "Author implies notability by association, mainly being founded by former employees of another non-notable company (this is not the same Sequoia that creates voting systems) that was acquired by Citrix. Financing and a blurb at Dr. Dobbs round up the sources."
Artifact Software is notable based on the following reliable secondary sources providing significant in-depth coverage of Artifact Software that is national / international in nature:
- The SDTimes article is devoted entirely to in-depth coverage of Artifact Software. In the space that Artifact Software operates, the SDTimes is the most prominent magazine.
- The Dr. Dobbs Journal(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Dobb%27s_Journal) article is not as in-depth, but it is a significant thought leader in the software industry and is tremendously reliable.
- By the numbers, as measured by Alexa, Dr. Dobbs and SDTimes rank #1 and #2 under "Top > Computers > Programming > Magazines and E-zines " http://www.alexa.com/browse?CategoryID=384060
- I have also added a new reference published today by TechRepublic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techrepublic), a part of cnet.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnet). The piece is in-depth and extremely reliable. CNET ranks #148 for Internet-wide traffic and appeals to a broad international audience. http://www.alexa.com/search?q=techrepublic
- As for Sequoia Software, I do not rely on that company for inherited notability. It is simply a part of Artifact’s history. However, Sequoia was not a “non-notable company”. A look at the wayback machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20010210002738/www.sequoiasoftware.com/news/news.asp) shows news coverage by Information Week, eWeek, Red Herring, Software Magazine, ComputerWorld, Federal Computer Week, CRN, Washington Post, etc.
- References for the Sequoia purchase and financing are provided to validate the article’s content.
3) "Claims to be a provides application lifecycle management and project management software, delivered via Internet or Intranet using the software as a service (SaaS) deployment model. Use of these vague and too familiar buzzwords shows that this is a non-consumer online business without any showing of importance."
- Application Lifecycle Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_lifecycle_management) and Project Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management) are legitimate markets. SaaS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaaS) is a legitimate delivery model. These words are not vague and they have specific meanings which can easily be looked up on Wikipedia. These words also precisely and accurately explain the business of Artifact Software. I also don’t see how the author’s perceived use of “buzzwords” have any bearing on WP:CORP or WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvansant (talk • contribs) 23:44, 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, MBisanz talk 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, the corporate speak in the article is horrible, and I'd love to see it written in something approaching english rather than ad-speak, but the sources provided do demonstrate notability. --Ged UK (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite per Ged UK. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems like blatant advertisement, but I still feel like this page should exist. This company has drawn some news coverage: [27] Cazort (talk) 20:30, 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 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jordi Magraner[edit]
- Jordi Magraner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not appear notable. Wrote one(!) paper and founded an institute that is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Viciously killed, but that doesn't give him biographical notability, I don't think. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, as he received some attention in Spanish newspaper articles when he died: [28]. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to point out that it's inaccurate to assume an institution is not notable because there is no WP article about it. It's equally likely no one got around to it yet as with so many other articles. _ Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - proposed deletion is yet another example of the ethnocentricity of some editors. Keep for the sake of people who might be interested in him, the article does no harm. Esasus (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what this means? There is no corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia, so not sure how ethnocentricity can be claimed. 'Does no harm' could apply to any article! Parslad (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's unfortunately nothing notable (by Wikipedia standards) about this individual, although his death does sound tragic. ClovisPt (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per bio. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [29] provides a fairly substantial obituary. Please note that only read the babelfish version; El Mundo (Spain) indicates that it should be a reliable source and scanning the current frontpage does not raise any redflags, but I am not actually qualified to make a solid judgment here. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No nearly notable enough.--Peephole (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a memorial or obituary service. -Atmoz (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Certainly not notable as a scientist, no sign of any papers in reputable journals. Manner of death might be notable, but I tend to agree with Atmoz above. Parslad (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonnotable scientist, and Wikipedia isn't a memorial, nor is it the news. His death alone shouldn't determine notability, and he isn't notable as a scientist, so he fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Bindernagel[edit]
- John Bindernagel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unknown outside of Bigfoot enthusiasts. Probably a vanity stub. Fails WP:BIO. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here's an article. This looks potentially useful. So does this. And do you seriously suspect that User:Mad Max is Bindernagel himself? Zagalejo^^^ 06:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy While the article doesn't yet include enough information to warrant a full article (and the sources shown above don't either) I don't think a separate article is warranted yet, but the idea Mad Max is Bindernagel himself is ludicrous. He's been a longstanding Wikipedian for at least 3 year who edited many different subjects. Editors like that should be given the chance to fix their earlier contributions. - Mgm|(talk) 11:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - published author of some notoriety. Keep stub so it can be expanded over time. Esasus (talk) 14:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per everyone but nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the article stands the notability of the subject is highly questionable. However, if sources which establish notability are forthcoming, then the article should be kept. ClovisPt (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Not sure how this individual is any more notable than any other scientist, especially those carrying out serious research. Cannot find any papers published in serious scientific journals. Does this not fail WP:PROF? Parslad (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why must he pass WP:PROF? He's not known primarily for his academic writings, but as a figure in the Bigfoot hunting community, for which he has been discussed in the popular press. Zagalejo^^^ 20:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well article claims he is a wildlife biologist, for which there is no evidence. Parslad (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is described as a wildlife biologist in newspaper articles, at least. See [30]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but a professional biologist would have (many) papers published in reputable journals. Search finds none at all, doesn't even claim any in subject's own website. Certainly not notable as a biologist. Parslad (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of these might be him. But to get back to my previous argument, I don't think his work as a professional biologist (whatever it may be) is his main source of notability anyway. He's more notable as one of the better-known Bigfoot hunters, which makes him more of a pop culture figure than anything else.
- FYI, I've tried to add a few refs. And there's more material listed at Google News that I can't access at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but a professional biologist would have (many) papers published in reputable journals. Search finds none at all, doesn't even claim any in subject's own website. Certainly not notable as a biologist. Parslad (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is described as a wildlife biologist in newspaper articles, at least. See [30]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough for own article, could be added in article about BigFoot perhaps. --Peephole (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Bigfoot. Not wide enough notability for his own article, but enough for mention in the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources establish WP:N. Artw (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Artw Ryan shell (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced, encyclopedic. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are significant sources (see link above). Clearly over the WP:N bar and no one has seriously argued otherwise. Hobit (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article is well sourced and clearly passes both WP:N and WP:V criteria... on top of this, the nomination appears to be borderline WP:IDONTKNOWIT... I am sure there are a number of scientists/experts/academics that are not well known by the general public, but that is no reason to arbitrarily delete them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject 'hunts' a non existent animal. He isn't a scientist, or an expert or an academic! Parslad (talk) 07:07, 24 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 01:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Bryant Bartell[edit]
- Jan Bryant Bartell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Her book was admitted to being forgettable by a Q&A in a "News of the Weird" Halloween edition of the New York Times [31], which, by the way, should not be used to establish notability per WP:FRINGE. This does not confer biographical notability on this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT article said: "Ms. Bartell's book and its tales of a building possessed might well have been forgotten were it not for a gruesome incident that occurred in 1987. Another resident of 14 West 10th Street, Joel B. Steinberg, was arrested in the beating death of his 6-year-old daughter, Lisa. He was convicted of manslaughter." That is a personal opinion by the journalist writing the article and not at all a reliable assessment. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I own a copy of the book. It is excellent. Bartell, as a published author as well as stage actress is notable enough to have her own article. Obviously whoever said her book was forgettable is a Stephen King fan. Bartell's book is more subtle. No, it should not be deleted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find sources that show she's written a book about her experiences, but that's it. Proper sources are lacking (and I couldn't find any). - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the sake of people who might be interested in her, the article does no harm. Esasus (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She certainly exists, but I am not finding the sort of coverage on which we could base an encyclopedia article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; she's a published author, but we have no reliable information about her other than that. Wikipedia is not a directory. Mangojuicetalk 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. --Peephole (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep/merge The NYT article calls the book notable. The fact that it came to be notable by a coincidence isn't relevant. An article about the book may make more sense than an article about Bartell. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ScienceApologist. Andre (talk) 21:34, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interdimensional hypothesis[edit]
- Interdimensional hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Essentially, this article is the opinion of one guy, Jacques Vallee, who has failed to convince anyone else of his bizarre opinions (not even the alien-believing wackos). His opinions can be explained on the page devoted to him, but since the idea itself has not received notability and independent sourcing for fringe theories, this page deserves deletion or at the very least redirection to the Vallee article. I am reposting here because this argument was not made in the previous AfD, but should have been. Rather than boldy moving the article to its natural state as a redirect to Vallee's article, I repost here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The article was rebuilt around sources after the previous AFD, which would seem to establish WP:N (I've added a couple more just in case), and though the article is rather Vallee heavy it's a recognised ufological theory. Artw (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has at least 5 sources independent from Vallee that are sufficient to support a separate article and the article makes it clear enough it's a fringe theory. -Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Last AFD closed only 4 weeks ago; the only thing that has changed in the interim is that the article has been improved. JulesH (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More reason to keep than before, and a one month wait between nominations for deletion is quite insufficient. Collect (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm aware of alternate published sources that discuss these ideas in depth, they routinely crop up during channelled communications for example. K2709 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although I'm by all means a UFO-skeptic and I don't know much about this area, I've nevertheless heard about this theory (although it's more of a popular opinion of sorts than something I'd associate with one person like Jacques Vallee). Sourcing is sufficient to at least pass an AFD and this even has a potential of becoming a featured article one day. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable enough for its own article, perhaps it could be included in the broader UFO article or combined with Extraterrestrial hypothesis.--Peephole (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The faith of the nom shouldn't have a bearing on AfD discussions, since the article should be able to sink or swim on its own grounds. In the case of this article, I think the subject passes the notability guidelines (barely), but the limits on its notability/acceptance should be made explicit in the article. This should clear up the nominator's concerns about the fringe topic being overly-represented. Themfromspace (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Existing sources do not establish notability. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that you just removed Steven J. Dick as a source. Removing a reliable source from an article then opining that the article should be deleted based upon "existing sources" is not a particularly aboveboard approach. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a pair of quotation that had nothing to do with the article. You then reverted my change and, to boot, are not assuming much good faith here. I have tagged the portions of the text that are irrelevant. Clearly, we should only be considering citations that actually have something to do with the subject of the article. 14:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You removed quotations that are given by the sources cited as part of, and evidence for, the analyses of the various people's stances on the subject. If there's anything that is clear, it is that you aren't acually going and reading the sources cited, so your opinion of what is relevant, and indeed of the article as a whole, has no valid foundation. The assumption of good faith does not require us to be blind to such faults. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotations appear not to have anything to do with the article. To turn your rhetoric around, not having read the sources does not require us to be blind to issues of relevance. The fact that you continue to insist that my assessment of the irrelevance of these quotations is predicated on a lack of familiarity with the sources strongly suggests that you have read the sources, and so should be willing to address my concerns in the article. Otherwise, your assertion that my opinion lacks a valid foundation itself lacks a valid foundation. Sławomir Biała (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. It's pretty much self-evident that someone who not only hasn't read the sources, and (as is becoming more and more evident) isn't willing to even go and read them, can have nothing meaningful to say on whether the sources "establish notability", or indeed as to what is relevant to the subject as it is documented outside of Wikipedia. Again, we don't have to be blind to a removal of source citations in order to support a false assertion that they don't exist, that then (when noted for the underhandedness that it is) mutates into a challenge against text made on the basis that the sources don't substantiate the article that then (when noted for not being based upon checking the sources) becomes based upon a refusal to read the sources and a request that everyone else spoon-feed them to you. Your concerns, were they made in good faith, would be addressed by you actually putting in the effort to read the sources and check the article against them. They are readily accessible. Given that your complaint has no foundation in doing so, no more to address it is needed. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reply is utterly without substance. For what it's worth, I did check out the sources. The citations in the article are a bit misleading, since it is entirely based on Bates's synthesis of the opinions of other UFOlogists. In fact, the quotations are the same as those selected in his book. I suggest that we should refocus the discussion on the extent to which Bates is a reliable source, followed by whether we need to reiterate the same quotations that he does. Sławomir Biała (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. It's pretty much self-evident that someone who not only hasn't read the sources, and (as is becoming more and more evident) isn't willing to even go and read them, can have nothing meaningful to say on whether the sources "establish notability", or indeed as to what is relevant to the subject as it is documented outside of Wikipedia. Again, we don't have to be blind to a removal of source citations in order to support a false assertion that they don't exist, that then (when noted for the underhandedness that it is) mutates into a challenge against text made on the basis that the sources don't substantiate the article that then (when noted for not being based upon checking the sources) becomes based upon a refusal to read the sources and a request that everyone else spoon-feed them to you. Your concerns, were they made in good faith, would be addressed by you actually putting in the effort to read the sources and check the article against them. They are readily accessible. Given that your complaint has no foundation in doing so, no more to address it is needed. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The quotations appear not to have anything to do with the article. To turn your rhetoric around, not having read the sources does not require us to be blind to issues of relevance. The fact that you continue to insist that my assessment of the irrelevance of these quotations is predicated on a lack of familiarity with the sources strongly suggests that you have read the sources, and so should be willing to address my concerns in the article. Otherwise, your assertion that my opinion lacks a valid foundation itself lacks a valid foundation. Sławomir Biała (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You removed quotations that are given by the sources cited as part of, and evidence for, the analyses of the various people's stances on the subject. If there's anything that is clear, it is that you aren't acually going and reading the sources cited, so your opinion of what is relevant, and indeed of the article as a whole, has no valid foundation. The assumption of good faith does not require us to be blind to such faults. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a pair of quotation that had nothing to do with the article. You then reverted my change and, to boot, are not assuming much good faith here. I have tagged the portions of the text that are irrelevant. Clearly, we should only be considering citations that actually have something to do with the subject of the article. 14:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I note that you just removed Steven J. Dick as a source. Removing a reliable source from an article then opining that the article should be deleted based upon "existing sources" is not a particularly aboveboard approach. Uncle G (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but edit. Article needs a rewrite to help clearly position it as a topic among UFOlogists and saucer culture rather than a serious academic hypothesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It already says that. Indeed text was taken out of the article during this discussion, ironically because it was considered excessive repetition of what was already explicit right from the start of the article. (See the edit summary.) If you think that the article is better with the text in, discuss it with the editor who made that edit. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 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 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pestling[edit]
- Pestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced dictionary definition that is probably something made up. A quick google search finds no evidence of the existence of this act under this name. Previous PROD tag was removed. EronTalk 05:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:Neo, this seems to be made up, either specifically for this article, or in the recent past. No evidence of existence. --Ged UK (talk) 09:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - definitely a neologism, probably something made up one day, probably a hoax (as in, no-one has actually done this), and definitely WP:BOLLOCKS or other body part. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mortar and pestle, as it's a useful search term [32]. This use is surely a hoax, note the punchline included by the SPA page creator: "Best not attempted directly after being used for the preparation of pepper or chilli. Unless you're into that kind of thing." Baileypalblue (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, and probably some other guidelines. Themfromspace (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, better suited for Urban Dictionary. - Draeco (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously failure of WP:NEO. It's likely somebody made this up and it has no significant usage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete it appears to be a hoax. Ikip (talk) 22:46, 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 keep, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert M. Price[edit]
- Robert M. Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm setting up this AfD for Ottava Rima (talk · contribs), who doesn't want to be bothered with the grunt work :) Ottava Rima will write down his rationale soon, I hope. Please don't comment till then. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated a few articles before but managed to leave something incomplete. So yeah. Regardless, when I was looking through the pedia, I noticed a few Lovecraft pages linking to this "scholar". Robert M. Price fails WP:PROF criteria for inclusion. He is a non-notable scholar who has no published in a mainstream major source, his only editorial job is for a non-notable "journal" that serves as a propaganda piece for an atheist organization and not-academic based, he works for a non-accredited school, which means that he doesn't hold a real academic position, and there is little reliable sourced secondary information on him, and most of the references are from blogs or primary sources. This page mostly serves as a mouthpiece for him and his supporters, and includes wonderful tidbits such as Doherty saying, "Price has a way ... of putting forward no-nonsense arguments that are not only natural and compelling, they make it difficult to champion any alternative with a straight face - or a rational mind." It comes from here, the equivalent of a blog entry, and it is hosted by a non-reliable website. This page fails all of the inclusion requirements are serves only to push a strong bias with very little justification. To allow it to stay would only cause problems within the encyclopedia. If it does stay, it would need to be completely broken down and redone. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't believe me that the "review" is part of the blog, just click here for the blog. It is clearly non-academic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Price is well-known in the field of Lovecraft studies, but I agree that this article is unsuitable as it stands. I'd recommend that users interested in the topic eliminate the unsourced and peacocky material before this AfD closes. (And, Ottava, it might be a good idea to inform the editors who have made major contributions to the article of the AfD.) Deor (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an academic personally, "lovecraft" studies is not a reputable field, and, as the page even admits, its more about fan fiction than academics. You can tell that if this was a major field, a group like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, etc, would have picked up a book, come out with a set, etc, and used his work. They did not. Lovecraft was a great writer, but this guy claims that Yeats's "Second Coming" was influenced by Lovecraft, which even the basic High Modernist scholar can tell you is definitely not the case. The major contributions to the page was done by IP, as you can see here. Most of the named editors who are still around only did random clean up to the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep exremely notable author on the subject of Lovecraft, editor and contributor to multiple works. Deletion rational is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT Artw (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "extremely notable" would have "extremely reliable sources". Please provide them. Otherwise, it appears that your support is simply because you are a fan and not because of our inclusion standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP to address any concerns over POV or format.... and you know... it really doesn't matter whether or not he meets the nom's concerns for WP:PROF, as he is making a tremendous at stab at WP:AUTHOR... and because of his cult following a strong case for WP:ENTERTAINER as well [33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Notability can found in the strangest places. Since both the article AND wiki can benefit from its improvement, deletion is not a consideration. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cult following" does not equal notability. Reputable secondary sources do. There aren't any. A search for Robert Price comes up with reputable sources for the two other Robert M Prices but not for this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... interesting to say, but actually "cult following" does exactly equate with notability, per WP:PEOPLE: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". He has. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you reread. Unless there are "secondary reliable sources", it doesn't matter how -you- characterize him. There are no secondary reliable sources. Please, this is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... interesting to say, but actually "cult following" does exactly equate with notability, per WP:PEOPLE: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". He has. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don;t know if I would call him a scholar exactly, but he has been a book reviewer for Blackwell's academic Religious Studies Review. some papers published in orthodox journals, eg. but he is a notable popular writer on religion. The books have gotten quite sufficient references. There's no reason to reject articles worked on primarily by an anon. Even some of the Lovecraft-related works have bee published by mainstream publishers (Tales of the Lovecraft mythos by Ballantine) and the anti- christian ones by Prometheus, a respectable atheist publisher. "The reason-driven life : what am I here on earth for?" is in almost 400 WorldCat libraries. DGG (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having many publications does not meet the qualifications under WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, let alone reliable secondary sources. Please provide evidence for him being a "notable popular writer" in any regards, because the reliable secondary sources do not verify this. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- having multiple works in hundreds of libraries certainly does prove popularity, and I accept WorldCat as a reliable secondary source for that. DGG (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is true, you better rewrite WP:AUTHOR then. Hundreds of libraries? Anyone can get published in schlock. If he was notable, there would be reliable secondary sources of information. DGG, unless you can put forth some, then you have no argument here. I am surprised that you show such disrespect for WP:V. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- having multiple works in hundreds of libraries certainly does prove popularity, and I accept WorldCat as a reliable secondary source for that. DGG (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Schmidt. Yes, he would probably fail WP:PROF (though that's a horrible criteria to try to enforce IMHO), but he passes other criteria instead. This whole nomination smacks of academic snobbery to me, though that's not why I'm suggesting keep. --Ged UK (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other criteria requires reliable secondary sources. You have provided none. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep DGG's arguments are compelling. I'm not sure that I follow the nom's reason. So what if subject probably doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC? He probably also fails WP:ATHLETE utterly and completely. That doesn't mean he cannot be notable otherwise. Whatever the academic status of Lovecraft studies, this person may be notable as a fan of Lovecraft. If the article is bad, it should be cleaned up and/or rewritten, not put to AfD. --Crusio (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A brief search on amazon shows that this guy is the author of a number of mainstream published books (Incredible Shrinking Son Man, Deconstructing Jesus, Blasphemies & Revelations, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts, Jesus Is Dead, Reason-Driven Life: What Am I Here on Earth For?, Tsathoggua Cycle (Cthulhu Mythos), The Antarktos Cycle). He appeared in The God Who Wasn't There as (according to Wikipedia) a 'notable personality'. This article is on the Arabic, German, Norwegian and Swedish Wikipedias. Over 100 articles link to this one Special:WhatLinksHere/Robert_M._Price&limit=100. Content issues (and whether or not he's mainstream) are not reasons for deletion. Article needs to be kept and improved. Edgepedia (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being an author of "many" works does not meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. They must be covered in reliable secondary sources and show that he made an impact on his field. He has not. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this article in the The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man in the The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, reviewing the book. I found this in less than five minutes. There's likely to be more. Edgepedia (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you have one source towards writing a page on The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, but not even enough to warrant saying that the book is notable, let alone the author being notable. I think you need to read up on reliable sources in terms of notability for a BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And three more here.These people seem to share your opinion on him. Perhaps if this is a reliable source, you could use as the basis for a critism section. A group calling theseselves the Minnesota Atheists have a list of his books for sale [40]. There's a review of his books here by someone with a PhD. Here's another review. here he's mentioned in news item as an important scholar. Here he is listed as a scholar on a handout from a presentation at Stanford. Edgepedia (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to think that you need to reread what a "reliable source" is. What you have provided are not reliable sources. Bible.org? mnatheists.org? tektonics.org? Come on. None of these are reliable sources. Your "reviews" are by people who aren't credible for reliable source inclusion. The Buffalo news post, the only thing you have provided that is a reliable source, lists him as attending an event and doesn't establish notability in terms of inclusion. The fact that you are trying so hard and can't find anything only proves that he isn't notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this article in the The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man in the The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, reviewing the book. I found this in less than five minutes. There's likely to be more. Edgepedia (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep perhaps a blizzard here. One may find a person a lunatic, but that can not be used as a reason to delete an article on him <g>. Collect (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an actual rationale by chance? It would be helpful because this is not a vote but deals with consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have have never censored notable atheists and fringe theories, unless of course they are not notable or consist of novel ideas. I am not sure this stub falls into the useless cruft category. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is proven through reliable secondary sources. Please find some. As I stated to DGG, I searched for many hours and could not find enough information to prove that he is notable via secondary sources. The current page is used as a coatrack, so it is more than just "useless cruft". Ottava Rima (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I may be wrong here, but I think he meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed) – as indicated by DGG and Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. – the discipline being a subfield of literary analysis.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In order for your Keep to be justified, you must provide sources to show that he had a significant impact. Having a bunch of publications does not qualify. There must be third party reliable sources saying how they are essential to the field. "Lovecraft studies" is not an academic field. 20th century/High Modern literature is. If you can find something from there, then you can justify under WP:PROF. If not, your keep is unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject who has written about apartheid seems to be another Robert M. Price, who is also notable (and easily passes WP:PROF).--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I pointed out above that there were two other Robert M. Price's and both seem to be notable but not this one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Ottava Rima. I know of at least two tenured full professors, holding endowed chairs in prestigious universities, who are known for specializing in the analysis of the works of one single well-known literary author. These folks would easily pass WP:PROF. Prof. Price’s case seems a bit weaker than these folks’, but still is a keep, in my opinion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He works for an unaccredited university. Obviously, there is a difference between the professors. Endowed chair for a major university is also a criteria under WP:PROF. I know many people who specialize in individuals also. However, they are either specialists in a major individual or also specialist in a field (High Modern, for this case). This professor doesn't seem to even have a -degree- in literature and he is being cited as a Lovecraft scholar. He is not. He is a theology scholar who isn't reputable in the field of theology. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note - this "professor" claimed that Yeats's "Second Coming" was influenced by Lovecraft. Such a claim is laughable and one of the reasons why he wont ever work at an accredited college. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not the guy is right has no bearing at all on this discussion. For someone citing policy so much as you do, I would expect you tho know that. For all I care, he could maintain that the Earth is flat and rests on top of some elephants standing on the back of a turtle. --Crusio (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROF requires them to be a respected academic. This professor will never be one for obvious reasons including that they have low academic standards and write on topics that they are unqualified to discuss. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you are obsessing so much with WP:PROF, while it is clear that this person's notability does not derive from that guideline, but from others? --Crusio (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is so clear, where are the reliable third party sources? None have been provided yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiousity, do you have a cite for this Yeats thing?Artw (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See this book. The first appearance of the "myth" came after the first publication of Yeats's poem. It is impossible to even claim that historically Lovecraft influenced Yeats, let alone can it be declared such from the content of the poem. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The book also contains work by Lord Dunsany - in your mind does this mean Price is claiming that Lovecraft inspired Dunsany? Artw (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read his introduction years ago when I was going through Lovecraft as the successor to the Victorian Gothic tradition. I still have the book. He seemed to suggest that they were all influenced by Lovecraft and part of the universe. His introduction states that Dunsany served as the source for the name. (""was probably a creative unconscious fusion of two names from Lord Dunsany, the prophet Alhireth-Hotep and the deity Mynarthitep" p. vii) Now, on Yeats: ""These three apocalpytic poems read almost as if their authors had collaborated in a round robin. In fact, that is just what they did, though none of them was aware of doing so" p. 14. This is completely speculative and historically bs. Not only is "Second Coming" not apocalyptic (the gyre is a circular construct without an end and cannot be "apocalyptic" in any form), there was no relationship between this authors. He throws it in there to make Lovecraft's idea seem more broad and mainstream. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe he is arguing that Dunsany and Yeats influenced Lovecraft, which would seem more likely since it doesn't involve a time machine. I mean, this isn't the place to get into this, but it's kind of funny that one of your major gripes against the guy seems to be based on you misinterpreting something pretty basic, and you've now brought it up multiple times despite its lack of relevance to inclusion. Also that you've read the guys introduction and it being sufficiently important for you to emphatically disagree with it years later despite it's lack of notability. Artw (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What he is doing is adding in a whole set of authors when he does not have a degree in High Modern studies. Yeats did not influence Lovecraft. The two works were almost simultaneous and both wrote their own stories and finished them before either were published. Thus, they were done before they were ever revealed. What Price did was try to promote himself into areas of academia based on his work on Lovecraft, a very minor writer. Obviously, there was a backlash which is why he stopped pursuing entry into High Modern criticism after 1996. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And for your information - I am moving to delete this page because there are no reliable secondary sources to prove notability. DGG has even admitted that the page is not a BLP because there is no biographical information. This is an acceptance that this is nothing more than a coatrack. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to say that there were no problems with the bLP policy because the article, as an article should, discusses primarily his work. Articles about people emphasize the things that make them notable. Biography is usually just background--though in the case of people notable for producing creative art, which does not apply here, it is an exceptionally important background, for their work is typically interpreted in light of it. DGG (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest you reread WP:COATRACK if what you say is true, because you are completely mistaken on this. A BLP page that is not devoted to the biography falls under a coatrack. Only the individual book pages are to be devoted to the books. If there is no reliable third party sources for the biography, then there cannot be a biography page. Individual book pages? Sure, but they do not belong here. Such coatracking could easily be used to justify a CSD in this case, seeing as how it is a BLP and such things are completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to continue the derail, but Lovecraft actually praises Yeats explicitly in Supernatural Horror in Literature as ("undoubtedly the greatest figure of the Irish revival if not the greatest of all living poets, has accomplished notable things both in original work and in the codification of old legends. ") - so inferring that he was some kind of influence on Lovecraft is really not that much of a leap. Artw (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lovecraft can praise Yeats all he wants, but twisting around Yeats's poem in such a way is academic dishonesty. He works at an unaccredited university for a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the article having sufficient sources for WP:N, if that's ypur concern then why not just say it is and leave out all the redundant verbage? FWIW The articles current sourcing IS pretty shoddy, though IMHO not to the point where deletion is appropriate - and the repeated assertion that no further sources could possibly be found is rather a silly one. Artw (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You just added "An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia" to a section that, when I checked, does not give support for all of the evidence that the reference is linking. I would like you to go and delete the information that this source does not support in the line. If not, I can do it for you. I checked and I could find nothing from the encyclopedia to reinforce that "Price edits the Journal of Higher Criticism". There is also no source to back up this claim "Price has been a major figure in H. P. Lovecraft scholarship and fandom for many years". Most of the unsourced information needs to be removed, and it would reduce the page considerably and leave almost no biographical information which would force the page to be deleted as a coatrack. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to say that there were no problems with the bLP policy because the article, as an article should, discusses primarily his work. Articles about people emphasize the things that make them notable. Biography is usually just background--though in the case of people notable for producing creative art, which does not apply here, it is an exceptionally important background, for their work is typically interpreted in light of it. DGG (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep...for the multitude of reasons as stated above. No need to reply.--Buster7 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an additional note - until any of those keeps above actually provide secondary reliable sources, keeps claiming that it is notable because of them are basically invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clean-up, don't delete. - Draeco (talk) 07:55, 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. MBisanz talk 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aspire for Life[edit]
- Aspire for Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While this is a well written and sourced article (it should be, it's by professional researchers), the programme appears to have no independent notability at this point. Which reduces it to being a promotional article for a new entity created by a SPA whose username correlates to one of the team members listed on the Aspire website. To put it bluntly, spam. I have no objection to recreation by neutral parties once the programme has significant independent coverage. dramatic (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in secondary sources. Zero google news hits, zero related google scholar hits, nothing relevant on Lexis-Nexis. I always hate to call for the deletion of an apparently well-sourced article, but this seems to just exist as something like an advertisement at the moment. It may well become notable in the future as per nom. Cool3 (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
- Keep, subject/result of two research studies, one by a university.[42][43]. Significant coverage in Nutrition News[44], the Bakers bulletin[45]. XLerate (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent mainstream coverage of the Aspire program itself, only academic references to the original research programme, which is not the main topic of the article. . . Rcawsey (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no reliable sources on the product itself, which is purportedly the subject of the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:15, 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 Nomination withdrawn per a thorough cleanup done by a third party not long after this nomination was issued. (In fact, by the time the first keep vote was cast here, the article looked nothing like what I had nominated or prodded.) Further cleanup was done by me to remove promotional and praise material just prior to this withdrawal. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mateer Memorial Church[edit]
- Mateer Memorial Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. The article was prodded on notability grounds, but the deprodder changed the entire article into something that does not even seem to relate even remotely to the subject. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:COATRACK -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep South Kerala is a very interesting area of India, indeed. [46] [47] has a photo of the church, and much information on it and Rev. Mateer. IOW, meets notability requirements. Collect (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Collect's input. The article needs to be cleaned up rather than deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:27, 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 merge to Xfce#Applications. Closing admins tag for merge, they do not perform the merge. MBisanz talk 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mousepad (software)[edit]
- Mousepad (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Since WP:Notability (software) is now defunct, software falls under the product inclusion criteria, which says that a product should not have its own article unless it has significant outside coverage (which this doesn't). It says that if it fails that, then it should be included in its parent company's article. Since this one was written by a single dude (who doesn't have a WP article on him), there's nothing to include this under... Unless you count Xfce as its parent company. But you can't, because Xfce didn't make it, they just included it in their software package. TLDR version: It fails its notability criteria. flaminglawyer 03:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. However, that criteria seems meant to apply to commercial products and services. Mousepad isn't just a product, and it wasn't "just included" in Xfce. It is the default text editor of Xfce. In fact, you could say that Xfce produced Mousepad, since they list it on their Projects page, and the original author appears to have been or is a significant member of the Xfce developer community, judging by his participation on the Xfce forum. In fact, every maintainer listed in the latest source control records have xfce.org e-mail addresses.
- There's a Wikipedia category called "Category:Free_text_editors", listing several other editors that are of no greater significance to the open source software community. I noted the omission of Mousepad in the list of default editors on the List_of_text_editors page, and that's where I added it first. Then it seemed reasonable to go ahead and create the article, since several of the others in that list have one. Consider the article for KWrite. Conceivably, someone with more knowledge of Mousepad than I have could enhance the Mousepad article to provide at least as much information as the one for KWrite currently does, such as a complete list of features. It's hard to understand why that should be discouraged by removing the nascent Mousepad article. User talk:Jakewan —Preceding undated comment was added on 04:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge along with Terminal (Xfce) and the other software listed in Xfce into a new page, List of Xfce software. Should probably be covered, but isn't important enough for a standalone page, IMO. JulesH (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above; makes sense as part of main Xfce page. Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge; I really like the idea of a separate List of Xfce software page. There are enough individual projects shown on the official Projects page, and even more at the Goodies site, that including it all on the main Xfce page might be too dominating of that space. Does that make sense? I'm new to contributing on Wikipedia and I really do just want to make it right, and I appreciate this discussion. User:Jakewan 17:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see there is such a page, just with incorrect capitalization in its title: List of XFCE applications User:Jakewan 17:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi! I'm Erik Harrison. I'm kinda indifferent to whether or not there is an article on a piece of software I wrote - I'm certainly no expert on Wikipedia or it's notability guidelines. But as long as a third party is putting up information about me in one of the comprehensive collection of all human knowledge, I just want to mention that I'm single, I cook, and am an alternately wild and tender lover. -Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.125.69 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've merged the article into Xfce#Applications. The original page still exists, and is now redundant. flaminglawyer 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. Thanks a lot for the guidance! User:Jakewan 15:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that the article is currently the subject of a 'rescue'/improvement attempt, such a merge should be done again by the closing admin if closing as delete. Cynical (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Default text editor in the third most common desktop environment on a major operating system. It is capable of being brought up to standard given sufficient time to find WP:RS (given that it's open source, there are a lot of non-reliable blogs to wade through in search results). Cynical (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per above --Unionhawk (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. --Sloane (talk) 18:53, 24 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 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asian Spirit Flight 321[edit]
- Asian Spirit Flight 321 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was subject to a previous AfD more than one year ago and immediately after the accident, in which it was kept. However, there's no evidence it was more than a brief news item and is encyclopedically notable. StarM 02:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article still does not assert notability, nor has the sources to attest to it. Nothing of significance happened in the incident, other than the fact that it occurred, and that has not changed since its first nomination. No significant edits made since last nomination. - BillCJ (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:AIRCRASH, no notability established, a single news reference, no evidence that this was anything more than a momentary news story. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AKRadecki. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge info into articles on the aircraft, airline and airport involved ( Done), then Delete. Mjroots (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mjroots, then redirect to relevant section in airliner article, or delete, i'm not fussed. --Ged UK (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very minor accident...Like said above, it fails WP:AIRCRASH Spikydan1 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not sign of notability was just news of the day, not even notable enough for a merge into YS-11 article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insignificant airline incident. WP is not a news archive. -Atmoz (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The accident fails WP:AIRCRASH and was only really kept as a result of recentism. I nominated the article for deletion last time around, and I still see no reason to keep, and no notability. WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOT#NEWS. This is why we shouldn't rush off to create articles about the day's events before we know their full impact. Themfromspace (talk) 01:52, 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 03:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Average Angler Adventures[edit]
- Average Angler Adventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The tv show exists, but there's no evidence it's notable. StarM 02:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Google suggests it's nn. Computerjoe's talk 11:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; lack of independent, reliable sources that offer more than trivial coverage. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep of the just now improved article as having "local" notability. It is no blockbuster, but is reviewed and written up by experts in their field and in that area. Yes... its no prime-time blockbuster, but for what it is and where it is, notability is notability. Many sports have only a "regional" notability, but regional does not matter (per WP:CSB), as long as they meet the notability requiremenst. As a sports fishing show, in a sports fishing area, and to sports fishing enthusiasts, this one kind of sneaks up on WP:N. One does not have to be a sports fishing fan to perhaps see that this works for them. It gets coverage, it gets reviews, and it gets multiple less-than-trivial mentions... all now added to the article by WP:ARS since its original nomination and included AFTER the above delete opinions were made. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: trivial coverage, insufficient 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 01:03, 25 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, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Istvan Javorek[edit]
- Istvan Javorek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be pretty self-promotional, and probably fails WP:BIO. There is an article profiling him, but I'm not convinced that makes him notable. Even if he does deserve an article here, we won't lose by starting from scratch; this doesn't even have references. Biruitorul Talk 02:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No obvious notability. Interwiki links are all false. Parslad (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam and non-notable. If it wasn't for 'world renowned' in the lead i could be speedied. --Ged UK (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is a quite extensive list of publications at the end of the article, but due to the interwiki hoax, I'm inclined to think none of these are more than simple mentions of his name and that the author probably even included some fake references. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The person is non-notable, the article is going nowhere. Dahn (talk) 23:41, 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 speedy delete. It's already been A7ed, just closing the AfD StarM 13:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AIDSTanzania[edit]
- AIDSTanzania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While a verified group, there's little evidence that this group is notable outside of the College. It exists, but there's nothing that appears to set it apart from any other organizations and it doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. StarM 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD A7. Club or Group that gives no assertion of notability. Firestorm Talk 04:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy db-corp A7 and i've nominated it as such. --Ged UK (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never learnt how to close these things, but it's gone now. --Ged UK (talk) 10:10, 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 speedy Withdrawn. I concede. I don't agree but others have made good points. Good improvement of the article, as always, MQS. StarM 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Above the Limit[edit]
- Above the Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no evidence that this short is notable. While its age is an issue, there is no evidence that it was notable at the time and ghits don't explain its significance. "Article" lists only its stars, and without material - there is nothing to expand. Thoughts? StarM 02:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A film made in 1900?? This is something that very well may be of historical notability and found in historical archives of fimmaking. You have set a quest and I will gladly do a bit of research. 1900?? Wow. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In historical archives: [48]. More coming. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as I just said on my talk (let's keep it here for sake of finding), I don't think evidence that it existed means it's notable. There's no doubt there's a record of the short, but that doesn't mean it's historically significant or notable. If you find something that establishes notability, I'm happy to reconsider, but I don't see it at that link. StarM 03:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment responding to this comment, in the interest of keeping it here, I don't know that a record of its existence is the same as preserving it, but I'm open to input. It's bedtime here so I may not be around until tomorrow evening but I'll pop in when I can. As I said, I may be wrong and am happy to reconsider and/or withdraw if there's evidence it should be kept. StarM 04:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did some digging, detective work, expansion, and sourcing. Remember that old coot who played Dorothy's Uncle Henry in the original The Wizard of Oz in 1939? That was actor Charles Grapewin and this, when he was 30 years old, was his very first film EVER. He was in vaudeville at the time, and returned to it... not making another film until 1929. I have not so far found it in (history of film?) college curricula (yet), nor have I found any 1900 news articles about it (likely impossible), but I have found it historically archived in a number of places... and well... the Library of Congress kind of seems like a reliable source and is shows (as do other sources) it "selected for preservation in a national archive"... so that should meet WP:GNG. But not to wait on that one thought... in WP:NF, under "Other evidence of notability, there's 1) "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema"... well, in 1900 the United States did not have a national cinema, so this film might be seen as one of the milestones in the development of US film... and then there's 2) "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career"... this was Grapewin's debut film. He is the only one credited (as best I can find) as being in the film, so his contribution was the most important in the film's making, as a notable person, and as the very beginning of his film career. So... pick one or pick all three as I offer this little bit of notable history to Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Michael Q Schmidt - great digging! Artw (talk) 08:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly the article has moved on substantially since it was nominated, and it certainly meets WP:NF. --Ged UK (talk) 08:41, 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 tag (game). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gools[edit]
- Gools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Don't you just hate it when an article doesn't fit neatly into a CSD criteria? Well, this is a textbook case of that. No refs, no verifiability, even if it did have either of those it probably wouldn't meet the criteria for inclusion for this type of article. flaminglawyer 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, looks like I found another reason: WP:NEO. As a side note, the prod was removed without reason. flaminglawyer 01:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Flaming Lawyer. I was the one who put the WP:PROD on this one if I recall correctly.FingersOnRoids 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This article also seems to be borderline A1. Firestorm Talk 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure in among the crud is some evidence the term is regularly used in connection with tag. Merge? StarM 04:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to tag (game). As per StarM, there is enough evidence of the term's definition, but it's quite weak and would be better suited in the Tag article. --Ged UK (talk) 08:59, 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland Crew[edit]
- Maryland Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-varsity program at the University of Maryland, College Park. No demonstrated notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 01:43, 20 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) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nom. Firestorm Talk 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Avila[edit]
- Jim Avila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. The subject of the article is a journalist and a correspondent for ABC News. There's no indication that he has done anything notable besides pop into our sitting rooms from time to time. Every person that appears on our TV screens or in our newspapers don't warrant an article, and I don't think that this person does either. Firestorm Talk 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is the weekend anchor for a national broadcast newscast and one of ABC's most go-to correspondents on WNT, equivalent to Andrea Mitchell over on NBC. The anchoring alone is enough to ensure notability. Nate • (chatter) 02:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep National Association of Hispanic Journalists journalist of the year 2008, among other referencesVulture19 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep He isn't just some person who appears on TV screens. Article needs expansion, but that's no reason to trash the article. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:48, 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 merge/redirect to Pink Floyd#Personnel, although the lists are identical, so it's really just a redirect. (NACflaminglawyer 20:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Pink Floyd band members[edit]
- List of Pink Floyd band members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reason to separate this chart from Pink Floyd article A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See further explanation on talk page --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 100% redundant to the personnel section of the main article. flaminglawyer 01:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - simple solution: just move the table into the Personnel section of the main article. Thus redundant page is removed and the Personnel section is made clearer and more informative.
Java13690 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Merge to Pink Floyd. There are definitely some instances where the band members do warrant their own article; see List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members. However, this article doesn't provide enough extra information to justify splitting it off. fuzzy510 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pink Floyd; no need for a separate page. JJL (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pink Floyd, then delete. I'm sure this table was in that article some time ago. There's not enough information in this to warrant splitting it from the main, featured, article. Nor is there any prospect of it growing much. --Ged UK (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pink Floyd#Personnel, then delete. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acutally, redirect to Pink Floyd#Personnel. I've just done a comparison of the two, and they seem virtually identical. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because the person who created the chart, copied it into the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the appropriate subsection of Pink Floyd. While the article did contain information on its members prior to this article's creation, the current format was created by whoever spun this out, so we need to keep the original around for attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, at least for now. Judging by the number of band line-up changes, this could evolve in a satisfactory article, but right now it's nothing more than a list. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AQUA5[edit]
- AQUA5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only two sources given are the band's website (self-reference) and an entry on something called the "Takarazuka Wikipedia," which isn't actually Wikipedia, but a cheap knockoff. No verifiability and, as far as I can see, it doesn't meet WP:BAND. But, as it doesn't neatly fit into CSD A7, it's here. flaminglawyer 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Bio. Why not a WP:PROD? Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.FingersOnRoids 01:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in some of the information on the Japanese Wikipedia regarding the group's TV appearances; hopefully this is enough to apply under "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If you need more, I can try and find some Japanese articles and/or other sources. Mirumoon (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Upon the adding of new references to the article that show that it passes WP:BAND, I strike my original decision of Delete. FingersOnRoids 03:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in some of the information on the Japanese Wikipedia regarding the group's TV appearances; hopefully this is enough to apply under "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If you need more, I can try and find some Japanese articles and/or other sources. Mirumoon (talk) 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep WP:BAND criterion 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.). According to the article, they performed at the opening ceremony of the Athletics World Championships. I would argue that the opening ceremony of an event is a work of media (it's there to entertain, and is not really anything to do with the sport concerned). However, the sources that claim this are not reliable. Sadly the official site of the games has gone now, so if Mirumoon can find some reliable, preferably English, sources that back this up, then it's a definite keep. If not, then I'd not lose sleep if it went . --Ged UK (talk) 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested, I've added an English language reference for their appearance in the IAAF ceremony. I've also added references showing that the group has charted their three singles on the Japanese Oricon charts. As this would fall under "Has had a charted hit on any national music chart" as well as what is discussed above, I believe there is certainly enough evidence presented here to keep this page, though I can always try and find more if necessary. Mirumoon (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Neier (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - according to the oricon page linked at the end of the article, all three of their singles charted (#35, #40, #37) nationally. Neier (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: both charted and the C10 claim above means they pass WP:BAND. Onward. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:22, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Gardner (curler)[edit]
- Chris Gardner (curler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom raised from a WP:ANI thread. Previously speedied, but restored by original author who is an administrator. Unclear whether subject passes WP:ATHLETE. Black Kite 00:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think it passes WP:Athlete as the curler in question skips a team involved in the World Curling Tour, the highest level curling tour in the world. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plays at a sufficiently high-level league to pass WP:Athlete. Poor form to just restore one's own article though. --Ged UK (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article provides no indication that he passes WP:Athlete, given that curling is an amateur sport, no sign of international recognition. Parslad (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just plain bollocks. They even play Curling at the Winter Olympics. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am aware of that (I'm Scottish) but the point is, has he played in the Olympics? No! There is also a World Championship, which again there is no participation. I refer you to WP:Athlete. Watch your language too please! Parslad (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just plain bollocks. They even play Curling at the Winter Olympics. - Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article actually needs to state it along with other improvements, a world tour is a sufficiently notable competition to be considered the highest possible level of its kind behind the Olympics. -
Mgm|(talk) 10:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to have significant news coverage, enough to meet the GNG. RMHED. 20:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but all the hits are for regional Canadian newspapers, reporting provincial level matches. Still doesn't reach WP:Athlete?. Parslad (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every hockey player has played in the Olympics or the World Championships, yet we have articles on every single NHL player. The World Curling Tour is the curling equivalent. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very true, but according to WP:Athlete professional sportspeople are notable per se, whereas in amateur/semi pro, evidence of participation in Olympics/ World Championships is needed. If the subject has taken part in this tour, does that make him a full time professional curler? Perhaps someone with specific knowledge could answer? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure they are not full-time curlers. What is precedent for, say, college sports players in the US? They also get coverage in regional newspapers, and often national coverage. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are few full time curlers, but that's besides the point. Curlers on the tour still get paid in prize money, which makes them professional. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE asks for "professional sportspeople," and the article professional notes that "a professional athlete is someone who derives income by participating in competitive sports." I took that to mean "primary source of income," but it's possible it may mean all prize money. I don't think of someone as a professional athlete unless it is their profession. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the difference between amateur and professional alludes you when it comes to sports. An amateur athlete performs their sport with no income for it, while a professional athlete does. It does not matter whether or not it is their main source of income. For example, only amateur figure skaters can play in the Olympics, while pros cannot. And, this has been defined (historically anyways) as receiving any sort of prize money. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not quite as simple as that though. There are semi professional sportspeople, which I rather imagine this curler is. Marathons may attract 1000s of competitors, and there is prize money, so is each participant worthy of a wikipedia article? Perhaps if there was evidence that the subject regularly wins money, then he would pass WP:athlete. Parslad (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the difference between amateur and professional alludes you when it comes to sports. An amateur athlete performs their sport with no income for it, while a professional athlete does. It does not matter whether or not it is their main source of income. For example, only amateur figure skaters can play in the Olympics, while pros cannot. And, this has been defined (historically anyways) as receiving any sort of prize money. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE asks for "professional sportspeople," and the article professional notes that "a professional athlete is someone who derives income by participating in competitive sports." I took that to mean "primary source of income," but it's possible it may mean all prize money. I don't think of someone as a professional athlete unless it is their profession. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are few full time curlers, but that's besides the point. Curlers on the tour still get paid in prize money, which makes them professional. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure they are not full-time curlers. What is precedent for, say, college sports players in the US? They also get coverage in regional newspapers, and often national coverage. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very true, but according to WP:Athlete professional sportspeople are notable per se, whereas in amateur/semi pro, evidence of participation in Olympics/ World Championships is needed. If the subject has taken part in this tour, does that make him a full time professional curler? Perhaps someone with specific knowledge could answer? Parslad (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every hockey player has played in the Olympics or the World Championships, yet we have articles on every single NHL player. The World Curling Tour is the curling equivalent. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. - we like marginally notable athletes. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It appears likely to me that there are sufficient reliable sources for a verifiable, neutral point-of-view article free from original research, which are the content criteria. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline to assist us in determining if a person is likely to have sufficient sources to do so; it does not determine if it does. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Earl Andrew, assuming that has been verified.Tavix (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minneapolis Mayhem[edit]
- Minneapolis Mayhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Local rugby team. The 139 Google results turn up mostly SELFPUB, with some scores from other teams' pages. Non notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Since this club competes at the national level against other teams in the U.S., and internationally in the Bingham Cup, I don't think that local team is an accurate description. This is an interesting situation-- there's an International Gay Rugby Association and it has an annual competition that draws teams from around the world, and this team plays in that competition. In the United States, rugby generally does not get a lot of coverage in the press. Oddly enough, a gay rugby team probably gets more coverage than a team that does not make LGBT an issue, perhaps because there are few similar sports competitions. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 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) 00:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep As per Mandsford, competing in the Bingham Cup just about makes them notable, but it could definitely do with more soources. --Ged UK (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the article needs third party sources to verify notability. If there are some available, keep. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 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. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alice Lee[edit]
- Alice Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Her official site reveals her to be nothing more than an aspiring actress and model with amateur/minor credits. There are no reliable sources to be found on her and none of the common model directories and fashion sites have heard of her. She claims here to be of only semi-professional status, which is a huge red flag. Mbinebri talk ← 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no soruces are offered in the article, and I am unable to find any either. Notability not established. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. Firestorm Talk 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable performer. Can be recreated in the future if she becomes notable. --Ged UK (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Firestorm. Nothing more to be said about this one. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:58, 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 no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anders Engbergs[edit]
- Anders Engbergs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tagged as unreferenced since 2006, reliable sources turned up with a Google search of "Anders Engbergs" show it as part of the phrase "Lotta & Anders Engbergs" (an earlier ensemble whose Wikipedia article has similarly been tagged since 2006 as needing sources - but at least they won a Grammis award). The article asserts a few charting recordings, but no indication of the level of success as needed per WP:MUSIC. A recent AfD resulted in the deletion of the article of the bandleader, and there is even less here than in the deleted article. B.Wind (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely notable. Has an iw link to Swedish article, existing uncontested since 2006, and with (Swedish-language) sources. Tomas e (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to check the logs on this one. Anders Engbergs was deleted in 2007. This is a recreation of that article. B.Wind (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomas was referring to the Swedish article. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't. B.Wind (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why and how a deletion two years ago, where I did not particpate in the assessment of notability, should have any effect on my judgment as to the notability of the subject. I make my judgment based on the article and the subject. And I must say that I find the habit of some editors of commenting on other people's "votes" to be tiresome. If you don't demonstrate a familitary with the subject and, in this case, Swedish-language sources in addition to English-language ones, you are not very likely to change my opinion. Tomas e (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't. B.Wind (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not demonstrating significant independent notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:32, 19 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) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. This article is about a band named like a person and a band has apparently had some hits in some Swedish top list. However, none of this is sourced and the previous deletion makes me wonder. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Simply needs some more references. Notable enough to warrant an article. ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:50, 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 merge to List of tricking moves. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double Leg Flip or side flip[edit]
- Double Leg Flip or side flip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. WP is not a manual WP:NOTMANUAL, and this is just a description of a move without much context. SIS 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article existed for 13 minutes before being nominated. It appears that there is a loose effort to consolidate a lot of these moves (List of tricking moves, and some of the articles on the list appear OK. Google yields 1.38M hits for Martial Arts Tricking, and the article for Tricking here seems to be fairly active, with a decent discussion page and a lot of unique editors. This article nay need more time....Vulture19 (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen articles exactly liek mine. If you mean the layout I can fix that. But otherwise this article is perfectly fine.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:46, 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) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep though it does need renaming to either Double leg flip or to side flip with the other redirecting. It needs rewriting too so that it doesn't read as an instruction manual (no more 'you do this' 'your leg that'). Otherwise, I've no problem with an article that lays out important moves within a popular past-time. --Ged UK (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of tricking moves. An article about a move in a relatively unknown martial art. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of tricking moves as per the Admiral's suggestion Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 19:05, 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. MBisanz talk 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LyricsFinder11[edit]
- LyricsFinder11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two reasons for this one. First, there don't seem to be a set of independent sources with significant coverage of this item, so it fails WP:N. Second, the purpose of the tool is to facilitate copyright violation by searching LyricWiki.org, a site devoted to lyric copyright violation. If notability was conclusively strong, I'd say the nature of the work was unimportant. Since the notability is weak, at best, it makes me want to deny this software any benefit of the doubt. —Kww(talk) 15:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think the copyvio nature of the tool matters, since we have articles on quite a few bits of software that are illegal in some countries but still notable. However, this one would seem to fail WP:N. Firestorm (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The legality is irrelevant. The nom. admits that notability is there, though he thinks it weak. Requiring "conclusively strong notability" for things that one thinks illegal is a violation of NPOV. DGG (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:49, 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) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A greek blog and a company site do not establish notability. This software does not meet (WP:N). Dialectric (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are many of these wholly nonnotable software articles on Wikipedia and its about time they get cut if they can't hold their own against WP:N. I can't find any sources to describe this particular program in any detail and I have no idea what separates it from other pieces of software, ie: what makes it notable. Themfromspace (talk) 04:42, 24 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 Underoath. MBisanz talk 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rey Anasco[edit]
- Rey Anasco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only claim of notability is used to be in Underoath, but he was a member in their early days and is barely mentioned in their article. References about music club do not contain significant coverage Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable ex-band member. JamesBurns (talk) 08:37, 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) 00:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm torn about this one. Including his biographical details in the band article would obviously give undue weight to him compared to his time in the band, but the bio does include more than your trivial information. Depending on the notability of the venue, being a director of the Capitol can be notable too. Anyway, the fact he was in the band in its early days is irrelevant he was in it so at the very least we should redirect - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:MUSICBIO. To quote: [...] members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. This article doesn't suffice this requirement. Regarding The Capitol, we don't have an article about the venue, nor a mention at Capitol (disambiguation). Even if the venue is notable, a person who was its executive director for barely one year wouldn't be notable per se. We don't usually have articles about CEOs and he might have been notable if he were an owner. However, two zeroes don't make one. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good Info, Admiral, I should've given more thought to redirect. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was the director of the Capitol for about two years, and that venue was known by everyone in the city. Liked it or loved it, everyone had heard about it and Rey was the most important member in the creation. Although his time in Underoath may have been limited, the effects it has had is unmeasurable. His effect he has had is far more reaching than his short stint in Underoath, and there are a lot of people who would like to know more about Rey, and why not have it on Wikipedia?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horror podcasting[edit]
- Horror podcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mostly a dictdef, no sources, and could easily be merged into Podcast. What do people think? GTBacchus(talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't really a subgenre of podcasting, just a subject matter and I can't imagine where this largely unreferenced information could possibly be merged to. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a subgenre of podcasting, there's many of these podcasts out there, and they've been self-identifying as horror podcasts as well as began to organize across communities. Several of them have been mentioned in genre specific publications such as Rue Morgue (see reference added), as well as been nominated for awards that already have been nominated for Podcast_Awards which has a wikipedia entry. I understand that there's not much there yet, but if we could have some time to build on what's there there's plenty of external sources that document the significance of this movement. --Everdayghoul (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't really a subgenre of podcasting, just a subject matter and I can't imagine where this largely unreferenced information could possibly be merged to. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The horror podcasting community is strong enough to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. More than half of the Top 20 TV & Film podcasts listed at Podcast Alley are horror and genre-related podcasts, and the community of podcasts that have been built around the love of horror movies and media is a growing one. Podcasters and podcast listeners have united for several causes in 2008 alone, and because this community is claiming new members every week, it would be a shame, I'd think, to not see this represented at Wikipedia. --BrotherD73 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of how strong the community is, it's a question of how well-documented it is in independent sources. No matter how vibrant a community is, a Wikipedia article has to be source-based, and if the sources aren't out there, how can we document it? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the Rue Morgue article as reference, and as BrotherD73 pointed out there's the podcast ally top 20, which due to its democratic nature has to be somewhat objective, and there's the nominations for the Podcast Awards, which at the least testify to the significance of these grouping of podcasts. Not to mention, that as these podcasts begin organizing and identifying themselves as horror podcasts it makes the placement of a separate article more compelling. --Everdayghoul (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of how strong the community is, it's a question of how well-documented it is in independent sources. No matter how vibrant a community is, a Wikipedia article has to be source-based, and if the sources aren't out there, how can we document it? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The horror podcasting community is strong enough to warrant its own Wikipedia entry. More than half of the Top 20 TV & Film podcasts listed at Podcast Alley are horror and genre-related podcasts, and the community of podcasts that have been built around the love of horror movies and media is a growing one. Podcasters and podcast listeners have united for several causes in 2008 alone, and because this community is claiming new members every week, it would be a shame, I'd think, to not see this represented at Wikipedia. --BrotherD73 (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps the content of the article would be best placed in a general article concerning podcasting about fiction. Horror is far from unique in having a strong podcasting community; science fiction podcasting, for example, is also a very vital community with a number of highly considered podcasts (e.g. Escape Pod (podcast)). Perhaps a single article could be created that gives an overview of the whole subject, and then has genre-specific subsections? JulesH (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, especially with so much bleedover between genres, sci-fi and horror often being lumped into the same episode, much less the same podcast. --Everdayghoul (talk) 13:20, 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.