Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 13
< January 12 | January 14 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdraw, WP:SNOW Tavix (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Homer Hanky[edit]
- Homer Hanky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In short, it is an unnotable towel. It was only used a handful of times and seems to be an advertising ploy. Tavix (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in short, it is a notable towel. It is covered nontrivially in a handful of reliable, independent sources which allow for verifiability. WilyD 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The baseball equivalent to the Terrible Towel. Notability is easily met. Nate • (chatter) 05:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, it began as an advertising ploy, but the article discloses that, and the ploy succeeded in garnering nontrivial coverage. Incidentally, why is "this article's entry" on the AfD notice a red link, but it takes a reader here anyway? JamesMLane t c 12:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with above. LK (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable in the history of promotional items (stop laughing!), just needs better sourcing. Lots of good sources out there: this, this, and this are decent places to start. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is, I'm baffled by this Afd. Can the nominator explain exactly how the Homer Hanky does not meet the notability criteria for linens? I feel as though it meets all towel notability guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. snowball clause (non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Portland Reign[edit]
- Portland Reign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable team as they only played 12 games before they folded. Tavix (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a notable professional sports team. No value in deletion, per usual precedent an easy keep. WilyD 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We might as well keep it, for the sake of completion. Besides, there are sources available, like this and this. The team also featured at least one future NBA player, Ha Seung-Jin. [1]. (He wasn't necessarily a good NBA player, but most basketball fans will remember the name.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The game played in a notable league and had at least one notable player. The number of games they played is immaterial. Notability doesn't evaporate once the team folds. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Professional sports franchises are notable. Patken4 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Viz notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 09:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguements above. The team does satisfy the notability criteria as a professional sports team. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Added sourcing scrapes by notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For The Love Of Ray J[edit]
- For The Love Of Ray J (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable at this time -- purely promotional advertisement -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: From what I can see the article is supposed to be called I Love Money 2 or I Love Money (season 2). What happened to the title? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apparently I Love Money (Season 2) exists, This is just a pointless duplicate. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: The creator of this article copied the contents of I Love Money 2, this is a different show. The editors who have been working on the page are not the most well versed with wiki markup. By the way, a page of a similar name was previously deleted. I will see if I can find the link. Plastikspork (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it can be sourced to more than a blog. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for at least a couple weeks to see if more sources surface. The sourced blog is not the average blog, but where VH1 releases announcements about new shows and cast lists.Plastikspork (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article duplication. JamesBurns (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I Love Money is a different show. Boston (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Duplication or not, it fails WP:NOTE. -- 68.183.104.7 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For some inexcusably stupid reason I decided to do some rescue work on this article and have added some references. It wasn't immediately obvious what sources were blogs and what sources where just crappy, advertiser-driven DIY websites, so I was liberal in adding them. As this show is going to be on VH1 on February 2, if it wasn't notable last week it will certainly be notable next week. Although I am suggesting this article not be deleted, I should also warn that merely doing a web search on For The Love Of Ray J reduced my IQ by 25 points. Don't let this happen to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boston (talk • contribs) 09:11, 15 January 2009
- Keep, since the sourcing has improved. (I added one as well.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austenian Fashion[edit]
- Austenian Fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete another tautological article that basically repeats its title; while something can be said about Jane Austen's "fashion" - not the term used in literary criticism - it is said in the article Jane Austen; as, of course, would be true of any other artist, singer, author, politician, sports person, etc. of note - we don't need these sorts of articles by the thousands - one for each of our notables: Joe the Plumber's Fashion coming right up... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as it stands., Not even the usual term-- "Fashion in Jane Austen's novels" would be a better term,. and a possible article, if someone were to want to work on it seriously: there have been a few full length books written on the subject, as well as chapters on it in the many comprehensive handbooks on her works. But here's nothing here worth the keeping. However: it was just started earlier today, and the author was not notified of the AfD. Possibly he plans to expand it. I just notified him. DGG (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Lacks significant content. (Please recommend the creator to start articles in userspace so articles can be moved when they're actually finished and have some meat to them)- Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What little exists in this article is OR. Unless "Austenian fashion" catches on as a significant literary/academic term (as "Orwellian" has), no article for you! I wholeheartedly endorse the creation of Joe the Plumber's Fashion, though. ;-) Graymornings(talk) 01:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a credible term used in a significant number of scholarly works. Very few ghits. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sujoy Roy[edit]
- Sujoy Roy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Fails WP: BIO and WP: Notability. Professional online gamers do not meet these criteria. MrShamrock (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure why professional gaming competitors should be treated differently from any other competitive endeavour. Mr. Roy has attracted a lot of media attention (e.g. [2] [3], a list of various stuff on his home page (a lot of which is not available online so I haven't been able to check it) [4], an article in C&VG that gives a brief profile and some comment [5], a lot of stuff like this about things he did following his professional gaming career. Yeah, I'd say this guy is notable. JulesH (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - above items are convincing, but obviously need implementing as the article currently fails WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by JulesH one of the references even called him "the UK's first professional video gamer." (which makes him pretty much notable by default for being an important figure in a particular branche of gaming, just like musicians who are the pioneering representatives of a genre). The assertion of the nominator that professional gamers can never meet the criteria is erronous. If the competitions they're playing are sufficiently large they could even meet WP:ATHLETE. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References found by JulesH are reliable, and shows that Sujoy Roy is notable. The bio needs to be developed. More references should be added to the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I add a source found by JulesH to the bio.[8] The bio is better now, but it needs additional citations for verification. AdjustShift (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Corel Paint Shop Pro. Content under the re-direct for whoever wants to do the merge. StarM 07:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Picture Tube (Paint Shop Pro)[edit]
- Picture Tube (Paint Shop Pro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a single component of a computer program that by itself does not appear to be very notable. I suspect the article may also be a copyright violation (based on the tone and repeated use of brackets), however I can't seem to find from where. The article as a whole seems to be very promotional and would probably be best either deleted or redirected to Corel Paint Shop Pro. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Corel Paint Shop Pro (PSP). Picture Tubes are an interesting and unique feature of PSP and the lack of a mention of them is a surprising omission from the PSP article. Whilst there are multiple sources available about Picture Tubes I don't think that it makes much sense to have a separate page. My suggestion, therefore, is to merge the sourced content into the PSP article, as a new section, which would enhance that page. Smile a While (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Corel Paint Shop Pro, which is very notable. decltype 17:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Copeland[edit]
- Timothy Copeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person, from what I can tell, appears to run a insurance agency in Southern Virginia, however the article does not specifiy this, nor does it provide any information as to why he is notable. The only claim is a vague reference to "many different awards", none of which I have been able to verify. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with all possible rapidity for utter failure to establish notability as per WP:BIO or WP:CORP Eddie.willers (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google sources pointing to this person mostly appear to be business directories. One news article exists on subject pointing out how the decline of his family farm was forcing him to concentrate on insurance, but nothing otherwise. Rklear (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The awards are not verifiable, no other claims of notability present in the article. -_ Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't verify award, don't even know who he works for. Google doesn't help --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trax Puzzle[edit]
- Trax Puzzle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD based on lack of notability. I add that I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish said notability. See Google search (228 hits). MuZemike 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 22:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not appear to have received any significant coverage in a reliable publication. Marasmusine (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. I had hoped there might be sources out there, but I guess after one month that isn't the case. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Slight rewording of this, but not signficant enough difference for it not to be a copyvio. (It also fails to provide enough context to properly determine the nature of the puzzle. Is it a sliding tile puzzle like traffic jam with the ball being the target car or is it entirely different? You can't tell from the article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drillbit Taylor 2: Back from Jail[edit]
- Drillbit Taylor 2: Back from Jail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete - disputed prod - article confirming the rumor that a movie of this name is in the works - nothing describing the movie or why it would be notable if and when it ever shows up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, and the 96 G-hits I can find correspond to 2-star reviews of Drillbit Taylor, not to a sequel. Nate • (chatter) 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 1) Sequels should be mentioned in the main article until there's enough content. Articles about single rumors are not suitable for inclusion. 2) Article fails to provide sources and I can't find any that are reliable (I found a wikirage entry) (author abusively states that he can't give references because of copyright law) - Mgm|(talk) 11:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mgm. Until there is more on this sequel it can be spoken of at Drillbit Taylor. This seperate article is a tad too soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harbortouch[edit]
- Harbortouch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I do not see a good indication of notability for this one-year-old company. Further, this article is an orphan and has just one primary editor — I believe this page is being used purely for advertisement purposes. Timneu22 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am the only editor because it was only posted today. Also, I'm not sure what exactly would be needed to differentiate it from an advertising post? I would have to argue that any company entry could subjectively be viewed as both informational and advertising... —Preceding unsigned comment added by N7912 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and as spam. Cquan (after the beep...) 22:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the one who originally flagged it for spam. I removed my tag because of the clean-up that was immediately done. Possibly too much of a clean-up, as some info has gone that might be of use. One editor? As the creator says, it's a brand-new article. Notability? Maybe. It might be an idea to merge it with its parent United Bank Card until it's established more of a name for itself. The creator seems to me to have edited in good faith and tried to fit the guidelines. (No, I don't have any connection with the company. Yes, I do hit hard at the spammers.) Peridon (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter S. Albin[edit]
- Peter S. Albin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is not really even asserted in the article and a Google search didn't reveal much of note either. Fails WP: Notability (academics) as near as I can tell. Also, the article appears to have been created by a relative of Mr. Albin. ThaddeusB (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Professor of Economics at New York University from 1960-1972, & Chairman of the Economics Department of John Jay College of the City University of New York from 1973-1991. Full professor at a major university. . Google search for people from that period is an absurd way of checking. A naive article, since the books were given with only the links to amazon, but they are by major presses and held at many hundreds of WorldCat libraries (I'm adding that to the article). And, of course, COI is not a reason for deletion. Three such books and the professorship shows him a clear authority in the field,per WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above. The New York Sun obit in the ELs makes it clear he was an important figure and has ample information to help expand this to a good biographical article.John Z (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). His book Progress without poverty is in 513 libraries worldwide (WorldCat). He has several other books with significant holdings. Perhaps the beginning of the article should be re-written to emphasize something other than his work on cellular automata, which is not widely cited, and which is currently a key claim for notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That part wasn't in the article when it was nominated — we were only given an external link to the same reference without any mention in the text of the article about what it said about Albin. But roughly the same claim for notability, that he's important for applying complex systems theory in economics, is made near the start of the NY Sun obit. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A professor at a major university meets WP:ACADEMIC guidelines. - Mgm|(talk) 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above evidence and the resulting improvements to the article (the original was merely a resume with no claim of importance), I would like to withdraw this nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was I'm gonna speedy delete this as vandalism. This is something just made up by the creator. A new drug, particularly a street drug as described, would have numerous ref's and documentation. This has none. And the acronym is way over the top. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lysergic Intravenous Fermethamphetamine Epinephrine[edit]
- Lysergic Intravenous Fermethamphetamine Epinephrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sounds like a WP:NFT hoax. Google finds no record of such a drug. The footnotes go to a Geocities page. Sandstein 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete likely hoax. The reffed Geocities site hasn't even been started yet. No Google News, Scholar, Web, or Books hits. -Atmoz (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. My cousin was severely addicted to LIFE and went to rehab last week. It's not very known yet.
Agreed. I live in Upstate New York, and I have been offered LIFE before.
This is definitely not a hoax. It's a brand new drug. My friend uses it. Not a good thing at ALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewish894 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Largely a copyvio from the geocities page. And probably an hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus to delete. Consensus is that AfD is not for merge discussions and that this content is appropriate on Wikipedia in some form. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frasier's Curse[edit]
- Frasier's Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:Nonnotable episode, nothing found on Google News/Books/Scholar about production or reception of this episode so that WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be satisfied. I usually prefer merging and/or redirecting, but as my contributions are currently getting wiki-hounded, I actually prefer article deletion over an unsuccessful merge proposal in this case. – sgeureka t•c 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The best reference for notability I can find is this. Beyond that, bits like [9] aren't very helpful. Hard to say - lives very much on the edge of notability at this point, though for an overall very notable TV show like Frasier, individual articles are probably merited just to keep article size reasonable. WilyD 22:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Frasier (season 6) or delete. I wouldn't normally add delete, but I recently ran into an administrator who saw a bunch of merges and a few keeps and said it was a snowball keep. True story. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for now, at least. Frasier holds the record for most prime time Emmys, so we should discuss the plot of each episode in some detail. I realize that "real world" info may be hard to find, so I wouldn't prevent a merge to Frasier (Season 6). But that's a question of organization, and shouldn't require AFD. (And we certainly shouldn't delete an article because you can't get a merge to stick. That's just silly.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just as silly to boycott any merge attempts through wikihounding. If playing nice and collaboratively doesn't work for simple cleanup measures, then it's no surprise that more drastic actions are taken. – sgeureka t•c 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vindictiveness never solves anything. It'll just make things worse. I don't even know what you're reacting to. This article has only been edited three times, and the talk page is still a redlink. I see no evidence that anyone has contested a merge proposal. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the name of the initiators/participants of Talk:Frasier#Merger_of_all_Frazier_episodes_to_Frazier_seasons (they don't even spell the name of the show right) after Talk:List_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes#Redirection_.28.22merger.22.29_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes and Talk:Stargate_SG-1#Straw_poll:_Unmerge_the_stargate_episodes. I see a distinct pattern and don't see any good coming for my future cleanup work if I don't get any official backup through AfD right now (edit: I mean get confirmation that the articles shouldn't exist on their own as they are). – sgeureka t•c 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they haven't done anything yet... But let me ask you this: even if they do revert your edits, is that really such a huge problem? There's no significant difference between keeping this info in an independent episode article and keeping it in a list article. As I said, it's just a difference of organization. You're stressing yourself out over nothing. Zagalejo^^^ 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actually trying to reduce stress by getting one objective answer here now instead of wasting time and patience in a WP:CHEESE-type discussion, or seeing my non-participation there interpreted as "see? you have no consensus for merging". I disagree that there is no significant difference between 264 non-compliant articles and 11 compliant articles. – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... so what is the real difference? The eleven list articles will contain almost everything that was in the 264 episode articles (apart from the quote sections, maybe). Zagalejo^^^
- For a start, the 11 articles can quite easily be improved to a Featured List, and the 264 article can never be improved to stand-alone-article standards set by to WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:MOSTV (and eventually the proposed WP:FICT) except if they are allowed to violate WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. – sgeureka t•c 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The stand-alone articles don't violate any policies. They are not purely plot summaries, since they contain info on the air date, writer, etc, and we needn't worry about WP:RS, WP:OR, or WP:V, since most of the basic information can be sourced to the episode itself, or TV Guide. The rest of your links are just guidelines, all of which are controversial.
- You say that the season articles can be more easily improved to FL status, which is probably true. However, until there is an actual effort to make those lists featured, it just doesn't matter that much where we keep the info on episodes. (I'd also argue that an article can be perfectly useful without achieving featured status. A short, focused article is usually easier to digest than a long article with a broad scope.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify: I wouldn't try to prevent you from merging the article into a list. I'm fine with a merge. I'm just trying to understand why you think the content must be deleted if the merge doesn't go through. Zagalejo^^^ 03:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of WP:NOT#PLOT pretty much explains that having an "air date, writer, etc" is not sufficient (particularly as every episode article has an air date and a writer etc.) Currently, AfD is the only place to get an at least somewhat objective and binding ruling about fiction articles, and performing a merger effectively takes away this chance per the GFDL. As much as I generally prefer merging, I absolutely prefer to get one article deleted and then resume with merging the other ones (citing an AfD's precedent that the episodes shouldn't have stand-alone articles), than being prevented from performing a merger because of policy-defiant wikihounders. It's sad, yes, but I also have to see how to get cleanup work done. I hope this explanation helps. – sgeureka t•c 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I understand your reasoning a little better now. I'm still uncomfortable about using AFD for this purpose, because we shouldn't have to delete potentially mergeable content just to send a message to someone. But I think I've spent enough time in this discussion. I'll wait to see what others think. Thanks for your responses. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a huge debate about television edpisodes in 2005, when editors bulk deleted dozens of episodes. The consensus at the time was to keep these episodes.Wikipedia:Historic_debates#Television_Episodes This is still the consensus. That is why there are hundreds of television series listed on Category:Lists_of_television_series_episodes. I will study the history of the guideline WP:NOT#PLOT, if the history of most guidelines holds true, this section was added with a handful of editors (less than 10), with little discusion, and no strawpoll. In addition, and most important, WP:NOT#PLOT does not say that editors should delete plots, here is the full guideline:
Plot summaries. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).
I encorage the nominator to work towards expanding these plot summaries, into a "larger coverage of a fictional work," because right now, nominator is in violation of the policy WP:PRESERVE: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to...(list)" WP:PRESERVE trumps the mere three sentence guideline WP:NOT#PLOT. 19:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- There was a huge debate about television edpisodes in 2005, when editors bulk deleted dozens of episodes. The consensus at the time was to keep these episodes.Wikipedia:Historic_debates#Television_Episodes This is still the consensus. That is why there are hundreds of television series listed on Category:Lists_of_television_series_episodes. I will study the history of the guideline WP:NOT#PLOT, if the history of most guidelines holds true, this section was added with a handful of editors (less than 10), with little discusion, and no strawpoll. In addition, and most important, WP:NOT#PLOT does not say that editors should delete plots, here is the full guideline:
- Well, I understand your reasoning a little better now. I'm still uncomfortable about using AFD for this purpose, because we shouldn't have to delete potentially mergeable content just to send a message to someone. But I think I've spent enough time in this discussion. I'll wait to see what others think. Thanks for your responses. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of WP:NOT#PLOT pretty much explains that having an "air date, writer, etc" is not sufficient (particularly as every episode article has an air date and a writer etc.) Currently, AfD is the only place to get an at least somewhat objective and binding ruling about fiction articles, and performing a merger effectively takes away this chance per the GFDL. As much as I generally prefer merging, I absolutely prefer to get one article deleted and then resume with merging the other ones (citing an AfD's precedent that the episodes shouldn't have stand-alone articles), than being prevented from performing a merger because of policy-defiant wikihounders. It's sad, yes, but I also have to see how to get cleanup work done. I hope this explanation helps. – sgeureka t•c 05:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For a start, the 11 articles can quite easily be improved to a Featured List, and the 264 article can never be improved to stand-alone-article standards set by to WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:MOSTV (and eventually the proposed WP:FICT) except if they are allowed to violate WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. – sgeureka t•c 01:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... so what is the real difference? The eleven list articles will contain almost everything that was in the 264 episode articles (apart from the quote sections, maybe). Zagalejo^^^
- I am actually trying to reduce stress by getting one objective answer here now instead of wasting time and patience in a WP:CHEESE-type discussion, or seeing my non-participation there interpreted as "see? you have no consensus for merging". I disagree that there is no significant difference between 264 non-compliant articles and 11 compliant articles. – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they haven't done anything yet... But let me ask you this: even if they do revert your edits, is that really such a huge problem? There's no significant difference between keeping this info in an independent episode article and keeping it in a list article. As I said, it's just a difference of organization. You're stressing yourself out over nothing. Zagalejo^^^ 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the name of the initiators/participants of Talk:Frasier#Merger_of_all_Frazier_episodes_to_Frazier_seasons (they don't even spell the name of the show right) after Talk:List_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes#Redirection_.28.22merger.22.29_of_The_Outer_Limits_episodes and Talk:Stargate_SG-1#Straw_poll:_Unmerge_the_stargate_episodes. I see a distinct pattern and don't see any good coming for my future cleanup work if I don't get any official backup through AfD right now (edit: I mean get confirmation that the articles shouldn't exist on their own as they are). – sgeureka t•c 22:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vindictiveness never solves anything. It'll just make things worse. I don't even know what you're reacting to. This article has only been edited three times, and the talk page is still a redlink. I see no evidence that anyone has contested a merge proposal. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just as silly to boycott any merge attempts through wikihounding. If playing nice and collaboratively doesn't work for simple cleanup measures, then it's no surprise that more drastic actions are taken. – sgeureka t•c 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close nomination Using AFD to delete an article when a merge is unsuccesful is abuse of process. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know anybody abusing the process, Mgm... I'm just saying that administrators need to follow the consensus, whatever it happens to be. These episode articles are alright for a week or two; they're good practice for people wanting to sharpen their writing skills by talking about a topic that they're comfortable with. Inevitably, things like that should be merged into a larger article and then the article title should become a redirect. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no abuse of process. This article fails two inclusion criteria, period. It's up to me if I propose it for a merger or take it to AfD, and I think the later option is better to get the job done (i.e. to remove a non-compliant article). If it's held against me that I started an unspecific merge discussion about 200 non-compliant articles that unspecifically included this article, then I will learn the lesson and will take these 200 articles straight to AFD the next time. I am sure arbcom will understand that other editors have put me in a position where I have no other option to get cleanup job done. – sgeureka t•c 21:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Having not been a part of any merge discussions for this episode, and having found this at AfD as my being a member of WikiProject Television, might this search offer anything toward notability? Or this? Or this? Or this? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No (neither production nor reception info), No ("Frasier's Curse" was neither nominated nor won an award), Maybe and Maybe (I can't find useful sources on the first page each, but I can't claim that you won't find something useful one the fifth, tenth or of fiftieth page - but that not my WP:BURDEN anymore anyway after my searches for Google News/Books/Scholar came up empty). – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I would have been extremely impressed had anyone found the television show episode with search on Google Scholar. But I was surprised when I did come up with a couple things in Google Books:[10], [11], [12], [13]... but were only as trivial historical mentions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of these book sources when I started this AfD. The first book is a transcript (i.e. as primary as you can get when notability requries secondary sources), and the other ones are just lists of episodes without plot summaries, and wikipedia already has List of Frasier episodes for that. :-) – sgeureka t•c 23:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As an aside, I would have been extremely impressed had anyone found the television show episode with search on Google Scholar. But I was surprised when I did come up with a couple things in Google Books:[10], [11], [12], [13]... but were only as trivial historical mentions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No (neither production nor reception info), No ("Frasier's Curse" was neither nominated nor won an award), Maybe and Maybe (I can't find useful sources on the first page each, but I can't claim that you won't find something useful one the fifth, tenth or of fiftieth page - but that not my WP:BURDEN anymore anyway after my searches for Google News/Books/Scholar came up empty). – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close: Close nomination As per Mgm, nominator should not use AFD to delete an article when a merge is unsuccesful. This is an abuse of process, and against consensus. travb (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Close nom. I suppose I have a couple of problems here. First, it seems clear that this article wasn't nominated due to problems with notability, but instead because of problems with consensus building in the proper placement of the text within the article. AfD is not the place to solve that problem, talkpages are the places to solve that problem. Squereka talks about not wanting to embark on a clean-up project without having AfD's backing on the non-notability of these individual articles. Well, AfD survival isn't the test of notability. Consensus here doesn't outweigh consensus on a talk page and a problem shouldn't be transferred in this way. On a side note, I can guarantee that SOME episodes/articles from Frasier seasons are certainly notable enough for their own article. Why do I bring this up? Because, if we are trying, as a group, to find a "clean" way to organize episodes, putting most in a list, with some having their own articles, isn't exactly a "solution." SMSpivey (talk) 10:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. If there was no unsuccessful merger, then this is still an abuse of process. Deletion policy is that other options should be tried before deletion. Even the episode guideline speficially says to avoid AfD unless the information is "completely unverifiable and original research". AfD is not a place to get consensus when you think you can't get it elsewhere; this is just forum shopping. And alleged "wikihounding is not a reason to bring a dispute here either; if you have specific complaints about specific users, bring it to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U or some other form of dispute resolution. DHowell (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So with that reasoning, no episode article that fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be brought to AfD (even though WP:DEL#REASON says that N and NOT can be reasons for an AFD), while no-one sees a problem with AfDing all other kinds of articles that fail WP:N and WP:NOT. I reject that notion. Instead of everyone !voting to speedy close this and claiming abuse of process, can someone show that this article passes WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT? That would be much more helpful to determine the future of this article. – sgeureka t•c 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No merger necessary after my expansion of Frasier (season 6) with my own words. Can this AfD shift its focus now to the deletion of this nonnotable (WP:N), non-encyclopedic (WP:NOT) article? – sgeureka t•c 14:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only superficially paraphrased. Many whole phrases are still intact from the original article, e.g., "his divorce with Lilith and being left at the altar by Diane"; "not keen to go"; "unemployed, single and living with his father"; "a catastrophic job interview at another radio station on the same day"; "is very cross"; "walking outside the supermarket in shabby clothes pushing a shopping trolley". Zagalejo^^^ 20:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete handily. This article has zero reliable sourcing (and hasn't for over 6 months), and consists solely of production minutiae and plot. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The one thing Wikipedia does well is listings of television shows. If the merge failed, it's silly to flyspeck individual episodes and leave holes in the completeness of the particular project. I'd be open to reconsidering the merger, but I'm against deleting such articles piecemeal. THF (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Burn Notice episodes. Content under the re-direct for whoever wants to merge. StarM 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unpaid Debts[edit]
- Unpaid Debts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:Nonnotable episode, nothing found on Google News/Books/Scholar about production or reception of this episodes so that WP:NOT#PLOT can ever be satisfied. The ratings are already mentioned in the List of episodes, and the claim that it is the highest-rated BN episode is (no longer) true - not that the ratings were spectacular to begin with. The external links are only a plot synopsis by the network, and an unreliable blog. – sgeureka t•c 20:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to
Burn Notice (TV series)List of Burn Notice episodes Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's merged, I'd prefer to see it merged to List of Burn Notice episodes. -Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Mgm and Mandsford, as the individual episode has not yet gained a seperate notability outside the series. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (nac) The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg renkas[edit]
- Greg renkas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable person. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: "the pending end of the world"? TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we now thats is fodsrfkjgiodfjgb but its about Greg renkas and Greg renkas is not notable. I don't care about if its a hoax or not. The most inportant is Greg renkas and if he is notable or not. The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robbie Kirk[edit]
- Robbie Kirk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An Irish cricketer. The subject certainly exists but, in my mind does not meet WP:N as a result of a lack of independent reliable sources. Nor does he meet WP:CRIN, despite the claim to be a "well renowned Ireland international cricketer". CricketArchive shows details of his junior career only. Mattinbgn\talk 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\talk 20:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious vanity page, no real claim to notability. --Crusio (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Could be speedy deleted, imo. Mitico (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Metal Observer[edit]
- The Metal Observer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article absolutely does not establish notability. The sources given are almost entirely from the website itself, except for two citations to another blog. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, it was unanimously agreed upon that the article was not notable and should be deleted, but this has not happened yet. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article was deleted. This is a recreation. The history of the article even has an edit summary on creation indicating it is a recreation with better sourcing. No opinion yet from me on whether it is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: recreated article. No notable independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For now, I'm looking for some reliable/third-party sources, but If they exist I sure can't find them. Landon1980 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What the ...? The nominator above has got it wrong. The original article was deleted. I re-created it. Since I have no way of viewing the original, I can only presume that the two are very different. The article does establish notability, contrary to the nominator's assertion. Two citations to another blog? There's no blog. Blabbermouth.net is quite possibly the most reliable source out there for anything related to heavy metal music. It is frequently used as a source in featured articles here on wikipedia such as Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer and Motorhead. Blabbermouth is by itself a source on news on google and is cited by other news sources as easily seen on that link. It has also been cited as a source in several published books. Describing blabbermouth as a blog is simply wrong, no question about it. Suggesting, as another editor did, that there is no notable independent 3rd party sources on the article is also wrong. Was it too much a task to look up Blabbermouth.net on the internet, wikipedia or google news? This premier news site for all things heavy metal music describes The Metal Observer as "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" here and "one of the top international online metal resources" here. That makes The Metal Observer notable. --Bardin (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slippage is easy: these two entries on Blabbermouth are just that, entries, by contributors on a blog. They are not spoken by "the blog itself," as you claim, and so notability doesn't transfer here since I don't think there's an editorial board at Blabbermouth that checks and verifies each individual entry for accuracy and trustworthiness. Either way, I don't think transferability would transfer that easily anyway. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a blog. Yikes. Do you consider the New Yorks Time a blog too? If Blabbermouth is a blog, tell us please the identity of the these so-called contributors to the blog? --Bardin (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is a newspaper. Not a good comparison. OK, let's drop the word "blog"--we are still left with "user-contributed," as this page suggests. Are you suggesting that Borivoj Krgin writes every single word on the site, or verifies every phrase and fact(oid) that comes his way? Mind you, I'm not saying it's not totally reliable in general. I just think that you'd need a bit more than this; an article from the New York Times would go a long way. --Drmies (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitting news stories are hardly the same thing as writing and publishing news articles. Many other news media accept submissions in one form or another: New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio), Yahoo News, etc. Other forms of media focusing on music like All About Jazz or Allmusic also has a provision for user submissions. That does not make any of these sources a "blog" or unreliable. --Bardin (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you cannot distinguish between the New York Times (the newspaper) and the New York Times blogs (at http://www.nytimes.com/ref/topnews/blog-index.html) then this will be a long and tedious conversation. Seriously, if notability has to rely on two mentions on a noticeboard (whether or not overseen by an editorial board or not, we'll let pass--and as it happens, I like Blabbermouth quite a bit, but I won't claim they're an authority on metal publications), then there is no notability. Those notes don't even add up to a sentence. Notability, per WP:N, requires independent, objective, verifiable, in-depth reference. None of these things are the case for this particular article. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Submitting news stories are hardly the same thing as writing and publishing news articles. Many other news media accept submissions in one form or another: New York Times, NPR (National Public Radio), Yahoo News, etc. Other forms of media focusing on music like All About Jazz or Allmusic also has a provision for user submissions. That does not make any of these sources a "blog" or unreliable. --Bardin (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times is a newspaper. Not a good comparison. OK, let's drop the word "blog"--we are still left with "user-contributed," as this page suggests. Are you suggesting that Borivoj Krgin writes every single word on the site, or verifies every phrase and fact(oid) that comes his way? Mind you, I'm not saying it's not totally reliable in general. I just think that you'd need a bit more than this; an article from the New York Times would go a long way. --Drmies (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While blabbermouth does the form of a blog, that doesn't neccesarily reflect on its reliability. That said "one of the world's longest-running metal web sites" is what Wikipedians would call Wikipedia:Weasel wording, or if you come across particularly terse ones, they'd call it PR fluff. The other statement is a personal opinion. Neither really establish notability. Independent coverage in multiple reliable sources: The Radiofabrik reference is not independent as it's written by someone related to the site and I can't check whether the book mention is non-trivial. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "One of the world's longest-running metal web sites" do not qualify as weasel words becaue it is not evaluative, praiseworthy or critical. It is a mere statement of fact that presumably can be verified by anyone researching the subject. Your understanding of weasels words is a lot different from mine: I see nothing in that phrase that indicates hearsay or couch personal opinions in vague, indirect syntax, per the description of WP:WEASEL. The other statement is indeed of a subjective nature, but it's the sort of praise that the news media typically give to that which is notable. One can easily find similar phrases in the many featured articles on wikipedia, particularly those pertaining to media where other news organisations have deemed it worthy of praise. One can easily encounter mentions of a movie, song, album, musician, etc. being placed in some top 10 or top 100 list: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Freak Out!, Jurassic Park (film), etc. All of those "top" or "most-something" lists mentioned in these featured articles are every bit as subjective as the claim that blabbermouth.net is one of the top online metal resources. In any case, as far as I am aware, the presence or absence of weasel words are not grounds for deletion. I don't see where you got the idea that the Radiofabrik reference is written by someone related to the site. The books listed were not included by me. --Bardin (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of notability. More detail in my comments above. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find coverage about the metal observer. Whether Blabbermouth is a reliable source is not really relevant to as the coverage amounts to no more than a mention. That's not significant coverage, and certainly not enough to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blabbermouth only mentions the site in passing and that's what WP:WEB would call "trivial coverage" such as "a brief summary of the nature of the content". There should be at least one or two sources in which the site is either covered in greater depth or is the main topic. If there's evidence of those references, the article may be kept, but I don't currently see it meeting the criteria in WP:WEB. Spellcast (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Although there is not a clear consensus to delete in the discussion below, the importance of WP:BLP and, especially in this case, WP:BLP1E counsel strong for deletion in the absence of a consensus to keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juan Romero (witness to RFK assassination)[edit]
- Juan Romero (witness to RFK assassination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined PROD. Have sought sources, but all seem to link him simply to the events of the RFK assassination, which documents these events. Suggest deletion per WP:ONEEVENT and a lack of notability established by WP:BIO. Will be happy if non-net sources can be found, of course. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the relevant information in this article is already present at Robert F. Kennedy assassination. If deleted, Juan Romero (disambiguation) should be deleted also, as there will then only be a single article linked in it. JulesH (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep As the subject of an iconic photograph, he would probably be considered notable then, notable now. However, it looks as if the article's creator never completed the article. Not surprisingly, the 40th anniversary included a "whatever happened to?" story about Romero. It was linked to this page, but for whatever reason, it wasn't part of the narrative. A rather uninteresting and uninformative article about a somewhat interesting person. Mandsford (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jules. He is not notable and only happened to be in the room. All relevant info is already covered in the article about the assassination. TJ Spyke 21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable in connection with JFK. Proxy User (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect clearly only notable in connection with RFK's assassination (that's why we have WP:BLP1E). Also, I tend to disbelieve our own article that says that he was 12 or 13 years old while working as a busboy - underage labor would no doubt have caused some chatter and its absence tends to indicate none such occurred - demonstrating that we have systemic problems getting the story right with these marginally notable people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Times article says: "When Kennedy checked into the Ambassador and called for room service, Juan, then 17, cut a deal with the busboy who drew the job." In other words, he was 17, so there's no issues regarding child labor. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why does our article say he born in 1955? Even my poor math skills is enough to know that someone born in 1955 is not 17 in 1968. So something is wrong - even after you spent some effort looking it up, you couldn't see clear to correcting a clear "error" in this BLP - demonstrating the very good reason we have BLP1E - there are insufficient sources to monitor anything in their lives but the one event. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge anything not yet there. He played a significant role in the events of that assassination, but there's not enough material to write a biography apart from that. Redirecting to the article on the assassination makes the most sense. - Mgm|(talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Robert F. Kennedy assassination. No independant notability, but worth a mention there. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep - Notable alone because of the sheer number of political theory researchers investigating the JFK Assassination. This article is a good repository for background material on Romero, and other more trivial information as long as we steer clear of any BLP concerns if he's still alive.Critical Chris (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He was somewhere between 12 (if you want to believe our background material) and 17, so 40 years on, he'd be in his 50's, so our presumption unless someone comes up with evidence to the contrary is that he's alive and WP:BLP applies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um....Chris, Romero has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.... Fritzpoll (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Delete Juan Romero (disambiguation) as well just like User:JulesH proposes. BaldPark (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Not even clear it fits within the assassination article. THF (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete WP:1E, Notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Need info. Was he depicted in the movie about the assaassination? If he was a major character there, then I would say that it adds enough to his notability that even a stub would have merit. If in movie, then KEEP. If Hollywood did not find anything more significant other than the fact he lent a rosary, then the notability is probably not there. If not in movie, REDIRECT with #. MMetro (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. He is not notable by and interpretation of the guidelines. Even if his name has received widespread coverage, his "claim to notability" is ONLY as part of the assassanation, in which case his name should just redirect to that article. No need for a specific section in the article about him, either - just a redirect, and then people can scroll to the one or two mentions of his name. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 06:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any part of this article that is of interest (such as the bit about the rosary beads) into Robert F. Kennedy assassination -- Boston (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Romero was a witness to the shooting and participated materially in the events thereafter. In light of conspiracy theories, the importance of the event, and its altering of history, every player, no matter how small, should have an article. Cesium_133 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Policies are guidelines not set in stone. Romero is significant enough to keep and enough editors seem to think as much. If Policy is to be the only benchmark how about another Wiki policy: Wikipedia is not paper. JaneVannin (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTPAPER - "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must still abide by the appropriate content policies..." Fritzpoll (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A couple of people have said 'He is not notable outside of the RFK assassination' and they have offered that as a reason for deletion. Could this be expanded upon? As it stands that is insufficient grounds for deletion. (Sirhan Sirhan is also "not notable outside of the RFK assassination"...!) JaneVannin (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that Sirhan Sirhan has been the principal subject of multiple independent reliable sources. Romero gets a passing mention at best, and isn't (in my analysis) notable according to WP:BIO because it's only one event that he is notable for. Whilst I agree that our guidelines on the notability of criminals ad criminal acts are not clear, I fear that this is an WP:OTHERSTRUFFEXISTS argument. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unfortunately. Due to WP:BLP1E,it cannot be a standalone article; furthermore, there is no real significance to being the last person to shake RFK's hand. The picture that has a link from the bottom of the article is much more notable than Mr. Romero (as indicated by the caption of the linked page omitting the mention of Mr. Romero's name). While a redirection is sometimes offerend as an alternative to deletion, the resulting redirect's title is not exactly "RfD friendly." B.Wind (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stompin' Tom Connors. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadian historical events referenced by Stompin' Tom Connors[edit]
- List of Canadian historical events referenced by Stompin' Tom Connors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a clear example of WP:FANCRUFT, being just a list of various historical events that a certain singer has referenced in some of his songs. This article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question -- would the nominator make the same argument for an article about [[topics referenced in the works of Woody Guthrie]]? Or [[themes referenced in the paintings of Norman Rockwell]], the artist who profiled small-town American life? I suggest that the topics of singers or artists known for helping to create a national identity should not be measured by the same yardstick as "a certain singer". Geo Swan (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stompin' Tom Connors. The article has a discography of his albums, and can easily accomodate a selected discography of notable tracks. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge--I agree with Mandsford. It's an unlikely title for someone to search, that's one problem. Whatever nom. thinks of other hypothetical lists is not quite relevant. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm not gonna lie, I kind of love the title. SMSpivey (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the main biography article or with a Discography article on Connors (he certainly has sufficient canon to support a breakout discography). I have to echo Geo Swan's comment that aspects of the nomination suggest a little bit of WP:OSTRICH. Connors is considered the Canadian equivalent of not only Guthrie and Rockwell, but Johnny Horton as well (indeed the comparison to Horton is possibly even more accurate). There is nothing indiscriminate about listing this information with regards to Connors, however as others note, it's also an unlikely title to search. 23skidoo (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stompin' Tom Connors. A separate discography article including referenced discussion about the themes and nature of his songs would be quite nice, if that can be developed. Nonetheless, I don't think this is fancruft nor an indiscriminate list; just more useful included within a more general article with context. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Futaba Channel[edit]
- Futaba Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is renomination of an article that I previously deleted. As I mentioned in my close of the previous AfD, I felt that the lack of reliable sources was incompatable with this article. My deletion has been second-guessed by myself and at least a couple of others. Based on the foregoing I have decided to restore the article, and relist it here. I also will notify the participants in the past discussion. Futaba Channel is certainly a significant part of internet culture, being a precursor to 2chan and 4chan, as well as helping spawn the OS-tans, and our own WP:Wikipe-tan. Also, a large number of articles link to this one. So, the question I put to you is are these factors (or any others that may come up) enough to justify ignoring the lack of reliable sources? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
- Merge or Smerge to Imageboard as opposed to outright deletion. I haven't found any reliable Japanese sources, and I could only come up with one possibly reliable English source in Kotaku. However, that's not enough to establish notability as an independent article; could be mentioned summary-style and concisely with the other chans at the Imageboard article. MuZemike 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, I am making the assumption that 2chan and Futaba Channel are pretty much one in the same, if that is correct. MuZemike 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, this is actually very confusing. The name '2chan' is used sometimes as a reference to Futaba Channel (because it has the url 2chan.net) and sometimes as an abbreviation of 2channel, which is a different site that inspired the creation of Futaba Channel. Sources referring to 2chan could therefore be about either of these. The source you linked appears to be one of the latter. JulesH (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is, I am making the assumption that 2chan and Futaba Channel are pretty much one in the same, if that is correct. MuZemike 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see any reason to reverse my previous opinion on this and I won't parrot what I wrote earlier. As the rather contentious AFD for Threshold shows, there is a disconnect between the types of sources Wikipedia calls for and the types of sources that are feasible for such a topic. In particular Wikipedia's discreditation of most blogs is something that needs to be revisited in 2009, as more and more blogs are becoming sources of record. But that's a topic for policy change discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge then redirect per above. Reliable sources are likely going to be difficult to find but the impact its had on the internet, even if we can't figure out where or how its documented, is undeniable. As mentioned above, there is at least one source out there, which would allow for a merge into Imageboard for now, and allow re-creation of a fuller article if more english language sources become available (or japanese sources are found). Umbralcorax (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again same reason as already stated: popularity does not meet WP:WEB. There is no apparent significant coverage in reliable sources, and what other sites may be using its software is irrelevant. This site fails all WP:N criteria, and all WP:WEB criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", it has not won any "well-known and independent award[s] from either a publication or organization" nor is its content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster." It has not been demonstrated to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I can't even find a SINGLE reliable source that discusses this site, and the one source in the article is of questionable reliability. No one else has produced any either. Claiming they exist without providing is valueless. just because something uses its code or was inspired by does NOT make it itself notable at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't argue with any of the logic you've put forth, and yet, I can't help but think that deletion is not the right answer in this instance. I think this might be the kind of situation imagined by WP:IAR, where the rules, while normally useful, are, in this instance, preventing wikipedia from being as good as it can be, and should, at least in this case, be ignored. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve As I recall, my input at the first discussion was just a sarcastic swipe at the process... But I think this article is one of those examples of clearly "notable" subjects in non-English-speaking areas which are just difficult to source through the usual Wiki-techniques. The Japanese news media, for whatever reason, put articles online, and then take them down, wipe them from archives, and prevent other sites from archiving them. I have no doubt that there is sourcing out there somewhere... In print newspapers, magazine articles, whatever.... just not at the usual places (i.e., online sources) English-Wiki uses. Dekkappai (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important part of the history of a particular (and not small) segment of culture, which unfortunately is not documented by traditional sources. There are sources to use, but in order to use them we must accept that the sourcing standards for this article must be different from the standards required for other articles. While I'm not a user of this site, 4chan, or any of the other sites they have inspired, I can see from outside this group that the influence that these sites have had on a whole chunk of Internet culture is significant. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, as is WP:RS. This means that there will be (rare) cases where they are wrong for a specific article. This is one of them. JulesH (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Well as explained above, the article is an important part in Otaku culture, although I am not an expert on manga, I am of Wikipedia, and it is "incredible" that the article which was published for the first time our Wikipe-so is not listed in our encyclopedia. I apologize for not having info after his deletion, but as a fellow sysop of Wikipedia informed me in Spanish, he immediately provide me evidence to let it know to Xymmax. It should be noted who really can be a turn for the discussion of Xymmax, that there is a "campaign" for the deletion of the article, which we are avoiding they even got it on ja: wiki, ko: wiki pt: wiki etc. etc. Part of the culture of a country, part of the culture of manga, and especially part of the history of Wikipedia, it really deserves to be erased? I say no. Saloca (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. This a really important topic in the otaku culture. Futaba Channel is the nest of the OS-Tan, and the birth of the Wikipe-tan mascot was realized in this site. Besides 2chan, 4chan and Wakaba are the four main imageboards for this culture. In Japanese Wikipedia exist a lot of information, only must be translated and verified this information. Futaba Channel too is the place of the Konbini-tan manga (コンビニたん), and other special characters, series and slangs were created in this site. --Taichi (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/maybe merge There is still nothing we can say reliably about this website. On the current page it talks about Netrunner. Is that a notable part of Futaba history? Who knows? On Encyclopedia Dramatica it used to be claimed (before I changed it) that Futaba is the Japanese equivalent of Stormfront where attacks on Koreans are planned and executed and its bandwidth is paid for by the uyoku dantai. Is this true, or just nonsense added by a Korean? It's impossible to say with any accuracy. What I can tell you with reasonable confidence is that the website is hosted anonymously, its remarkable bandwidth comes from unknown sources, and it has nothing to do with 2chan. At best it can be mentioned on Imageboard as an enigma of a website which inspired most of the others. Shii (tock) 22:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, if our article on Encyclopedia Dramatica is to be trusted, it is 'a website that catalogs and/or satirizes current events and themes, especially Internet-related ones. It has been described by The New York Times Magazine as a "snarky Wikipedia anti-fansite."' So using it to show that it is impossible to get reliable information on Futaba Channel, is about as appropriate as using a... something or other to prove that it is impossible to get reliable information on... something else... or other... If you follow. I have no idea, but I suspect the Korean / Stormfront thing was satire, and that if you removed it thinking that it was Korean propaganda, you probably just didn't get the joke... I could be wrong, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Probably notable, so on balance it should be kept. DGG (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC) (Striking through duplicate comment, more full comment is below) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For reference, here are some reliable sources regarding Futaba:
- Futaba is extremely influential and well-known (in geek circles) in Japan, just take a look at the "memes spawned" section of the Japanese WP entry and the sheer number of Google hits. However, being 100% in Japanese it's inaccessible to non-Japanese and thus virtually unknown elsewhere, except as the site that spawned 4chan; and being an "underground" site full of questionable, often illegal content, it's also largely ignored by Japan's mainstream. Finding geek-oriented MSM mentions is also really tough even when they exist, because "Futaba" is also a city, an electronics company, a motorcycle rally, a common name and more... Jpatokal (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasons as last time, and for the reasons already given by others, above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ran into the same problem trying to source a hobby spawned out of Japan that has been slowly moving to the U.S. Notability is very difficult to establish when most of the sources are in Japanese. Tag for improvements. Maybe someone will do some translating. Kallimina (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Jpatokal and Ignore all rules. Oda Mari (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:IAR, this is clearly an important subject, and clearly the source of alot of things on the internet, like the look-and-feel of most imageboards, and clearly a large source of internet culture, like Wikipie-tan. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasons as last time, which others have given above. That this article was deleted on a literal interpretation of our guidelines indicates to me that the guidelines are in systematically incomplete (much the same way that WP:PORNBIO is biased against the way the East Asian AV industries work). —Quasirandom (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See my well-researched position in the previous discussion; also per above. This article describes a highly notable subject. Noir (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Keep and improve, per WP:IAR. Blatantly notable, a matter of improvement rather than deletion. — neuro(talk) 04:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If its notable enough in terms of common sense, then it's notable. (I do not think we even need to invoke IAR, because WP:N is just a gudeline, and therefore inherently flexible. Additionally, the nature of what counts as RSs depends on the subject, and there is just enough material here to show it. I'm glad the closing admin decided to relist it. As he says, "it is certainly a significant part of internet culture." This is the proper criterion of notability,not the accident of where sources happen to be. Thus, as there's a rational basis for keeping the article, and most established editors here think it should be kept, that's what should be done. DGG (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While i understand the necessity of rules and guidelines, i would like to ask does Futaba Channel matter for the japanese culture & the internet culture. If it yes and that article is deleted then i would be shamed that we are backing off when facing our own difficulties and inabilities to render properly a part of non-western culture. If we back off in every similar situation then we will deserve a truncated & biased view of non-western cultures in wikipedia.--KrebMarkt 11:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:DGG, his argument was flawless in my opinion on both AfD's - if it's notable enough in common sense, then it's notable. I'd also like to remark that my comment on the previous AfD was sarcastic in the term that I thought it was a mascarade, especially with that closing (double) vote from the nominator. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The nominator in the original AfD was User:Descíclope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 76.66.198.171 (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Umbralcorax's comment, this is really a case fit to invoke IAR, an article not having sources due to technical reasons, and the encylopedia being worsened by not having this article, since so many other articles refer to it. It's the chain link between 2channel and 4chan (mind you, Wired says that 4chan imitates 2channel's style without mentioning Futaba [17], so I have added it to 2channel#English_spinoffs --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.ld[edit]
Looks like a prank. The original page was copied from .er by Abdiali14 (talk · contribs) and the rest of the edits are from an IP. The company that is said to run it, Telcom, gives no mention of anything of the sort on its website, and a google search doesn't show any better. ChrisDHDR 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not appear to exist. http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db/ does not have a listing for .ld, Google turns up nothing. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unverifiable (and likely untrue). IANA is authoritative for top level domains so the lack of an entry as noted by Jo7hs2 means it doesn't exist. -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted above, no indication this root is actually in use. Please note that the domains template will need to be corrected, too, should this article be deleted. 23skidoo (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. Not found outside the author's edits to Wikipedia. If this isn't a hoax, it is wishful thinking/original research. Somaliland is not recognized as independent of Somalia. A TLD code is unlikely to happen without some kind of recognition. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since this is heading for a snowball keep, I'm closing it. Mgm|(talk) 20:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moland, Minnesota[edit]
- Moland, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A7: Article about a real place, which does not assert notability. Elm-39 (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, real place, A7 does not apply. Individual AfD is not the place to address whether or not places are inherently notable - current practice is that they are. DuncanHill (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the nominator said himself it is a real place. These kind of articles certainly do not meet A7...The only things that DO meet A7 are people, web content/sites, or companies/clubs. K50 Dude ROCKS! 18:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Firstly, A7 is a CSD criterion, it is irrelevant to AfD. Real place, inherently notable. — neuro(talk) 18:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - worth including in a comprehensive reference. WilyD 18:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was early close as delete per WP:SNOW. --fvw* 21:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Randazzo Sherman Theory[edit]
- The Randazzo Sherman Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research, twice speedied. Delete and salt. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can't find anything about this theory anywhere - Whpq (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - read the talk page; author admits it's new and non-notable work-in-progress. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Original research isn't one of the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification - Speedy delete as advertising for new and non-notable work-in-progress --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourceable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incomprehensible, unreferenced, and will most likely remain unreferencable for the foreseeable future. Hqb (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unsourcable, fails WP:Notability, may be notable in future, but just isn't there now. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- snowball delete not a chance in hell of this becoming a valid article, total bollocks. And please do salt the earth. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Original research is no grounds for speedy deletion. - Octanesque (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National Autism Association[edit]
- National Autism Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is no longer a copyright violation from the organization's website, but I am unable to establish notability using independent sources. The current sources are published by Medical News Today, whose article submission guidelines do not suggest rigorous editorial standards; this reference supports that interpretation by acting as a mouthpiece for the NAA position (and misusing plethora). There are a few mentions in quality sources, but all of the trivial variety, consistent with a small, non-notable organization trying to promote itself through the media. Until they have an impact and receive substantive coverage, we should not host this article. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Per the nom, I'm not seeing coverage in independent, reliable third-party sources. The Medical News Today pieces seem to be essentially press releases, and I agree with Eldereft's appraisal of them as criteria for notability. As a side note, there is an ongoing need to clean up the walled garden of content forks relating to "alternative" theories of autism - dozens of articles on non-notable groups and individuals are created, and then used as WP:COATRACKs for content which violates undue weight. Given the history of abusive editing on this particular topic, I believe we should rigorously apply notability criteria. MastCell Talk 18:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as discussed above, with no prejudice to recreation of reliable sources begin to mention this group. Whole heartedly endorse the comments above about the rigorous application of notability criteria. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MastCell. THF (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jo Graham[edit]
- Jo Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete non notable author. Only has one book out, relaeased last year, and all refs are to her own site or publishers catalogue. Mayalld (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, got starred review in Publisher's Weekly (didn't take long to find and add to article, after the original editor had mentioned it on talk page). PamD (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It got a starred review from Publishers Weekly, which means it's "a book to watch." Her second novel is due in March 2009 and has already received a starred review from Kirkus Reviews. I'm working on expanding the references now. -CaptainJae (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the improved sourcing. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Author has yet to receive significant critical acclaim (WP:CREATIVE). - Eldereft (cont.) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:CREATIVE. Schuym1 (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It seems a shame, because it's very likely to meet WP:CREATIVE in the next year or two, but doesn't meet it yet. THF (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Knút Háberg Eysturstein[edit]
- Knút Háberg Eysturstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A self-promotional bio that I think has failed to meet WP:VERIFY and WP:NN. Ships at a Distance (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The language used might be discussed but there are now several different references posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knytil (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not much happening here huh? How long are these debates usually taking? --Knytil (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, none of these references are from things other than blogs, or myspace pages, or other user-contributed sites. Is there no coverage from newspapers and magazines at all? Did he play at Summarfestivalurin? And what about the record company, Tutl? Is that notable? (I'm asking editors to please weigh in on this one.) Drmies (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geiger.dk and Rambles.net are not user contributed. They are online music magazines. I also just included a review from Gaffa.dk, the biggest music magazine in Denmark. NOT user contributed. Did not play at Summarfestivalurin but did play at G! Festival in 2005 and again in 2008. Summarfestivalurin and G! Festival are the two biggest festivals in the Faroe Islands. Summarfestivalurin is family oriented and mainstream, while G! is youth oriented and progressive in musical choice (which should explain why). Artists that have played at G! Festival are listed here http://www.gfestival.com/index.php?id=23 am listed both as performing band (Knút Háberg Eysturstein) and as performing DJ (Knýtil). I also have to say that I find it a bit weird that this particular article is subject to such scrutiny and "strict protocol" while so many of my peers have articles with similar or even much fever references, but those articles remain untouched and without comment. Is this something new? Has Wikipedia article control increased greatly recently? Or is it just a matter of chance?--Knytil (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the link to the review at G! Mini 2008 is not working in the article (don't know why), so here it is again; http://www.gfestival.com/index.php?id=31&tx_ttnews[pointer]=2&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=505&tx_ttnews[backPid]=29&cHash=36a8d5dc05 --Knytil (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:N and lack of WP:RS. The attempts to create notability in the article (his album is for sale on the web! he won a contest giving him studio time!) pretty much demonstrate the lack of it. THF (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep for me, despite Knytil's ad hominem comments here. I imagine it's not easy to get a lot of press coverage as an indie/folk/electronic artist from way over yonder, and I'm willing to see the glass as half full. I've added a source or two to the article and cleaned it up some; two of the reviews of the album are from US sources that, while perhaps barely notable, indicate some appreciation in this niche market. BTW, Knytil, I fixed that link that didn't work. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not sufficiently notable WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus to delete. Most of the discussion below is about renaming, refactoring, or merging, none of which require deletion. And the general tenor suggests that much of this content is appropriate for Wikipedia. But, on the other hand, there is no clear consensus to keep in the present form either. Further discussion at the appropriate talk pages is required, but deletion seems unneccessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serenity (franchise)[edit]
- Serenity (franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Largely a duplicate of the Firefly (TV series) article, and incorrectly identifies the group of media as being part of the series of Serenity as opposed to that of the pre-existing (and featured article) Firefly series article (which addresses the film appropriately). Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I would not be opposed to a merge of the two, for while there is significant overlap, there are stylistic differences between the articles that I think would benefit in a merge. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really sure what your first comment is saying. Could you try explaining it again? If you're saying that Firefly was originally meant to be a stand-alone series and not part of a larger franchise, this is true, but the same could be said for the film Stargate or the original Star Trek and they are both considered part of a franchise. The only difference between them and Firefly/Serenity is that the franchise had a name change. Imagine if they tried to squeeze every piece of Star Trek media into the article for Star Trek: The Original Series.
- Of course, I am not saying that the article does not require a lot of improvement, but its existence is justified.--Marcus Brute (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that a simple name change to Firefly (TV series) to Firefly (franchise) might allow for the largely duplicated information to be incorporated into that article, instead of a largely duplicative article. As well, I am not sure where you are finding the references that the franchise is referred to as Serenity; most media franchises are named after the parent (initial) offering - Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Doctor Who, etc. - all have offshoots, and all are considered franchises. And all use the parent title as the name of the franchise, and yes, Star Trek does incorporate all of the media regarding it, though only briefly and via subsidiary articles. There isn't a need for a new article where there is an existent one - a featured article at that - that can be adapted to fulfill the needs of the criteria. Have you considered initiating a discussion regarding this at WikiProject Firefly?- Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I titled the article "Serenity (franchise)" instead of "Firefly (franchise)" is because that is the title used for all media since the TV series; not only the film but also the RPG and the comics (which are written by Whedon himself). I'm not sure whether Whedon no longer has the rights to "Firefly" or chose to change the name, but he has used "Serenity" for every piece of media and shows no signs to switching back to "Firefly." Star Trek isn't called Star Trek because the first series was titled Star Trek but because the majority of the franchise uses the name.
- If we changed "Firefly (TV series)" to "Firefly (franchise)," this would present a problem because the Firefly TV series would no longer have its own article. Again, imagine if the only article with information on Star Trek: The Original Series was in the Star Trek franchise article. As for the comment that "yes, Star Trek does incorporate all of the media regarding it," I don't think you're realizing that Star Trek (an article on the franchise) and Star Trek: The Original Series (the article on the original TV series Star Trek) are two separate articles. The Star Trek: The Original Series article has no information on the different parts of the franchise besides one link to the Star Trek franchise article in the opening paragraph.
- As you keep bringing up that Firefly (TV series) was a featured article, I must point out that it was a featured article in November 2006. As you can imagine (and a quick look at the article history will confirm), the article has undergone significant changes since then, so bringing up that I have changed a featured article seems a little irrelevant.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what the subsequent info is termed; it all refers back to the original product: the Firefly series itself; everything springs from that, and listing the franchise as a subsequent product inappropriately credits the latter product. Star Trek isn't really a fair comparison - every product within the franchise begins with the appellation "Star Trek" followed by a colon and the product title. Star Wars is the same way. A better example would be the Buffy series (also by Whedon). Different named products, all within the same omnibus of BTVS.
- Additionally, i agree that just bc an article is FA doesn't mean it cannot be touched; it should be retouched, and often. Perhaps the sole problem here is the name of the omnibus article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From your last comment, I take it that you no longer want the article deleted, just moved? In that case I propose we end the discussion here, and a new one is opened under proposed moves.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell you what, let's just rename the sucker, and be done with it. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From your last comment, I take it that you no longer want the article deleted, just moved? In that case I propose we end the discussion here, and a new one is opened under proposed moves.--Marcus Brute (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think it should be deleted, and I also don't think moving it is a good idea. Everything since the series has had titles starting with Serenity (I'm almost certain that's because Fox owns the rights to Firefly), which to me suggests that the name of the franchise has been changed. Wikipedia should use the latest name of something, unless I'm mistaken. Jomasecu talk contribs 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I trouble you to cite where we do that? In virtually all other cases, we use the parent product as the name. :)- Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Standard style is to use whichever name is most common. My personal thinking is that Firefly is the more common name, but that could be just because the circle of fans I happen to read the writings of began with the TV series (which had a much better reception here in the UK than it did in the US, perhaps because it was shown on a channel that cared about it and in the right order...) JulesH (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think it should be deleted, and I also don't think moving it is a good idea. Everything since the series has had titles starting with Serenity (I'm almost certain that's because Fox owns the rights to Firefly), which to me suggests that the name of the franchise has been changed. Wikipedia should use the latest name of something, unless I'm mistaken. Jomasecu talk contribs 23:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't think of any other franchise that's switched names like this. Like I said, I could be mistaken; closest match I can think of off the top of my head is using a married name over a maiden name. Even then, when someone is overwhelmingly known by a stage name we use that, so I'd agree with using the most common name, but I'm not sure how we'd objectively measure that. Short version: I wouldn't move it but don't feel very strongly about that. However, I do think that the subject merits an article, whatever we may call it. Jomasecu talk contribs 04:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Firefly / Serenity franchise or something. –xeno (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is: Here's the thing: nothing in the franchise has been called "Firefly" since the TV show. All the RPGs, the comics, the movie, everything is called "Serenity". Even Better Days, a comic set entirely in the Firefly timeline, is called "Serenity". Also, the page seems to serve as an index for the whole franchise (which was probably the intent), which is something that I consider useful. I know that there is something about it that just seems wrong, especially to all those fans of the series out there, but looking at it objectively, this is what makes sense. kingdom2 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say, that is the first time I've been lumped as a fanboi; nothing could be further from the truth. In every other franchise article, it is based off the parent product; that means that this is Firefly, and not Serenity. Here's the real thing: Firefly came first, then Serenity. This is still an encyclopedia, and there are patterns to how we do things. This is one of those things. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as is: Here's the thing: nothing in the franchise has been called "Firefly" since the TV show. All the RPGs, the comics, the movie, everything is called "Serenity". Even Better Days, a comic set entirely in the Firefly timeline, is called "Serenity". Also, the page seems to serve as an index for the whole franchise (which was probably the intent), which is something that I consider useful. I know that there is something about it that just seems wrong, especially to all those fans of the series out there, but looking at it objectively, this is what makes sense. kingdom2 (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close and move discussion to an appropriate talk page, as not even the nominator is arguing for outright deletion; at best the nom is arguing for a rename and a merge and consolidation of redundant content. Whether that should be done or not, AfD (Articles for deletion) is not the proper forum. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Die Glocke[edit]
- Die Glocke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Maybe this should have been categorised as fiction and the arts, as the article started as one about a fictional device in Nick Cook's book (one of the main sources). So far as I can tell this (an alleged real Nazi device) is not only not notable, it may even be a hoax. Farrell and Mars are hardly reliable sources, and the German version was recently deleted [18] dougweller (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO all claims can be traced back to single author, which would suggest that this fictional device should at most mentioned in his biography. Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bell, which resulted in "merge" because the Die Glocke article was less bad. --Pjacobi (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of such a device is well-documented, and Nick Cook is not the only source on the matter. The Allied interrogation of Jakob Sporrenberg revealed that the Bell/die Glocke project was indeed real, in addition to the sabotage of the actual test site discovered by the Soviet. There are various other articles on Nazi secret weaponry, occultism, and so on, and this one should therefore not be deleted. --Manticore126 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources for such a 'device' existing? Device meaning a secret weapon of some sort. Our German colleagues couldn't find any. The fact that other articles exist is never a reason for keeping an article, but it might be that a brief mention in some other article (there is no article called Nazi secret weaponry). Secret documents about Jacob Sporrenberg have no reliable source (or even public documents), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:35, January 14, 2009 (UTC)
- The Nazis effectively destroyed most (known) evidence of the Bell, and, like many other issues concerning World War II, we have to rely on secondary evidence. I never said there was an article called "Nazi secret weaponry", but rather various other articles on the subject (Nazi atomic energy program, Me-262, and even an entire article listing Wunderwaffe). Now, aside from Jakob Sporrenberg's testimony (please try to spell his name right), you should also consider the post-war works of Igor Witkowski, many of which deal with the Bell, and are cited in other areas on Wikipedia. There is NO valid reason to delete this article; it should instead be improved upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manticore126 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources for such a 'device' existing? Device meaning a secret weapon of some sort. Our German colleagues couldn't find any. The fact that other articles exist is never a reason for keeping an article, but it might be that a brief mention in some other article (there is no article called Nazi secret weaponry). Secret documents about Jacob Sporrenberg have no reliable source (or even public documents), right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:35, January 14, 2009 (UTC)
- The existence of such a device is well-documented, and Nick Cook is not the only source on the matter. The Allied interrogation of Jakob Sporrenberg revealed that the Bell/die Glocke project was indeed real, in addition to the sabotage of the actual test site discovered by the Soviet. There are various other articles on Nazi secret weaponry, occultism, and so on, and this one should therefore not be deleted. --Manticore126 (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO all claims can be traced back to single author, which would suggest that this fictional device should at most mentioned in his biography. Also compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bell, which resulted in "merge" because the Die Glocke article was less bad. --Pjacobi (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - may be fact, may be fiction. Nevertheless, it has a significant number of books written on it and number of movies and novels. Also, it has had a number of documentaries on it and radio talks about it. Also, Witkowski, Cook and Farrell are notable authors of repute. Witkowski a military historian, Cook a respected aviation journalist and Farrell a physicist and scholar. Build up, don't tear down. It deserves its own article moreso than Duff Beer. Wikipedia is an edication resource. If I saw a movie on it and wanted to learn more the first place I would go would be Wikipedia. Whenever I want to know more on a subject I go to Wikipedia as do my friends. When I do not find an article, I don't think it isn't worth while, just that some admin on here doesn't see the bigger picture. Wikipedia is a first pont of contact for further research and as such should have articles on obscure subjects as long as they are well written and sourced. A conversation with Outpost writer Rae Brunton and Kieran Parker revealed that the Bell article on Wikipedia was of great help after they read Cooks book. AWT (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Farrell may have a reputation, but I wouldn't say it is for being a reliable source on such matters. He is not a physicist (why are you claiming he is, his academic background is all in theology), and he is currently an adjunct (so maybe part-time) professor at an unaccredited Christian college according to his article on Wikipedia. He is into all sorts of fringe stuff, but although he might well be a reliable source for theology, he isn't a reliable source for this. As for Witkowski, his own website doesn't call him a military historian but a journalist. dougweller (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read Nick Cook's The Hunt for Zero Point and he most certainly does not present it as a "fictional device." Cook's a respected aerospace writer with Janes and my question is, doesn't his non-fiction work The Hunt for Zero Pointe qualify as an RS? At any rate, the deletion of the article from the German Wikipedia does not say much for its real world existence. But given the sources, I'm inclined to keep and categorize under Category:Hoaxes or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree, categorize under Category:Hoaxes or something until more information comes to light. 77.96.24.33 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin I was notified of this discussion by User:Arthur Warrington Thomas, who seems to have left identical messages on the talkpages of several other editors. Skomorokh 21:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence that AWT contacted only people with a certain point of view. WP:CANVAS applies only if there is evidence of vote-stacking by contacting only persons who are likely to vote a certain way. It seems xe notified those with a vested interest in the previous AFD, which I think is appropriate. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Jerry. The people I contact where all those that at least no 1 edit to this article, regardless of their opinion. In fact, I never looked at their opinion or edit, just that they made one. I would have contacted everyone but I saw that certain people were contacted and others not before I got to do it so I contacted the ones that were left out. It only takes a glance at edit histroy to verify facts, not some major conspiracy on my part. LOL. AWT (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence that AWT contacted only people with a certain point of view. WP:CANVAS applies only if there is evidence of vote-stacking by contacting only persons who are likely to vote a certain way. It seems xe notified those with a vested interest in the previous AFD, which I think is appropriate. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep whether or not this is a fictional device, it's certainly recieved enough attention to warrant an article, and the article itself references enough third-party sources and is cited better than many articles here. Kuralyov (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see it's already categorized as a hoax, fictional weapon, conspiracy theory and Nazi mysticism. We've got enough RS for notabilty and article makes it plenty clear the doo-hicky is in all likelihood not the real deal (and thank goodness for that!). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMHO, the current state of the article is more of an advertisement (of several newly published books, which seem to become as several other articles on wikipedia in future) rather than a brief article covering the subject with a neutral point of view. As I look into one of the major "contributor" of the subject Joseph P. Farrell, I see an academic in Patristic Theology and Apologetics, with works in alternative archaeology, physics, technology, history, alternative history and strange stuff (as written in his wikipedia bio). He is presented as being the creator of the weapons hypothesis concerning the pyramids at Giza. He very well can be related to U.S. disinformation programme and this die glocke can in fact be a hoax. It is strange to me that an author mentions this die glocke in his 5 books. If Dean Koontz himself did not make a statement that, he was motivated by the legend of die glocke to include theme of it in his novel Lightning (novel), then it's not right to present that novel in the article. Therefore, the article needs more sources, some of which better be older, to satisfy the notability criteria better. Logos5557 (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and speedy close, due to a lack of valid criterion for deletion being asserted. The previous related AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bell, less than 2 weeks ago, arrived at consensus that this article was a valid repository for some information that was at the other article. I think that at least several months after such a consensus is registered should expire prior to repeated deletion attempts. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerry, I was in on that discussion and it was January 2008, not 2009. Please check the date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How could the closing Admin get that so wrong? I seem to have been accused of bringing an article back to AfD prematurely without having waited 'at least several months', whereas it is actually over a year. And I see no consensus there that this article was a valid repository, as only 2 editors suggested it.
- Jerry, I was in on that discussion and it was January 2008, not 2009. Please check the date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fairly easy for me to confuse the current year and the previous year in the first two weeks of the year. I am still writing 2008 on checks... I don't think such an error is all that outrageous and not something to make areally big deal about. For the record, I apologize for the error and acknowledge that the AFD was actua,lly a year ago. IT does not affect the recommendation that I made for the disposition of the article, only the speedy close part; which is now mute. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whether its as a piece on Nazi Lore/Mythology, Conspiracy Theory or Incomplete Historical Record or Unsolved Mystery this is a subject that has as much value or merit over other entries even if only for it's conspiracy element but much more so for the questions it raises about Americas willingness to absorb Nazi technology and scientists into its military industrial complex. Andrew in Montana
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) The Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brigyn[edit]
- Brigyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously deleted via PROD. Recently recreated. Magioladitis (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no rationale given for deletion. If it's on grounds of notability, there are these two articles that are specifically about them. [19], [20]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted as failing WP:MUSIC. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established the usual way. WilyD 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Treehoo[edit]
- Treehoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Why should we chop down Treehoo? It doesn't pass WP:RS, WP:WEB or WP:ORG. Do you think this belongs on a one-way trip to the Wiki-sawmill? Ecoleetage (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable soruces to establish notability - Whpq (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Off to the woodchipper I'm afraid. Insufficient notability for recently started enterprise. It's "reduce", in this case, so no need to reuse or recycle... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait! I´ll add more info. But in any case the articles about "Ecocho" and "Click4carbon.com" also should be delated as they are copycats of Treehoo.com, or what???
- Comment - Generally, the existence of other articles is not relevant. The merits of the article are judged independently. But as for the other articles, they have references from reliables sources. This article has none, and I was not able to find any when I did a search. If you can demonstrate the necessary coverage, then article can be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can ask an for the article to be moved to your userspace so you can work on it. But the subject needs to be covered substantially in independent and reliable media in order to be included in this encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - fairly many hits using Google, where Treehoo and its purposes are mentioned by other sources. Tomas e (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you point out some of these sources? I was unable to find anything but brief mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See: http://www.greenmuze.com/news/resources/691-top-green-search-engines-.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/best-green-search-engines.php (Treehugger has a page rank of 8/10 and thinks Treehoo is one of the best green search engines) http://www.frankrozendaal.nl/2008/09/28/trend-steeds-meer-zoekmachines-voor-milieu-en-goede-doelen/ http://lesettes.snowbroader.eu/2008/06/
- Comment - The site ranks no 2 in msn.com if you search for "green search engine".
- Comment - Since when does Wikipedia censor because of "bad peacockism"? Isn't there an article on Liberace?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G11 by Ben W Bell. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch2cash[edit]
- Scratch2cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement Elm-39 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Blatant Advertising. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 14:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But please work to improve the current article to meet our standards (as discussed here). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by English-speaking population[edit]
- List of countries by English-speaking population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article constains information of two kinds: information that is already presented in more relevant articles and information that is in violation of WP:OR, is unsourced and is not likely to be possible to source. All the article consists of is a table, containing
- The number of English speakers in Anglophone countries. This information is based on census results and is no doubt correct, at least as correct as could reasonably be expected. However, this information is already listed in a table in English language where we find a table with Anglophone countries and the number of English speakers in these countries. Having that information in this article only copies what we already have, and the page could perhaps be redirected to English language
- The number of English speakers in other countries. These numbers, if I may be frank, constitute an excercise in original reasearch. For European countries, the numbers builds on a language survey in the Eurobarometer. To be more precise, the numbers are claimed to build on that source, but the source do not support them. Nowhere in the Eurobarometer are the number of English speakers in European countries presented. All that is presented in the source is a series of estricted surveys among adult respondents in EU countries, with a sample of around 1000 respondents per country. That is all. After that, some Wikipedia editor has taken the percentages found in the surveys, calculated those percetages on the whole population and claimed that the resulting number equals the number of English speakers per country! This is a rather obvious breach of WP:OR, not to mention that it is wrong. First, the respondents in the study were all adults, so calculating the returns on the whole population is incorrect. It is highly likely than 100 Swedes aged 25-35 will speak English than that 100 Swedes aged 5-10 will speak English, thus the percentage in the survey is almost guaranteed to be higher than in the population as a whole. This limitation has been disregarded in this WP-article. Even if it were not, using the results of a restricted survey to try to claim the total number of English speakers based on one's own calculations would quite obviously not be a proper used of sources. The Eurobarometer cannot be used as a source to claim the number of English speakers in any country, and that was never its intention. For the rest of the world, there are two options. For some countries, there are no sources at all, only some editors own estimates. For most other counties, the source is a book The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (Crystal, 2005). This is a great book and David Crystal is an acclaimed academic, but once again, we are dealing with very rough estimates and the Wikipedia editor has taken Crystal too literally. I'm also worried that ripping a few pages of his book may constitute a copyright-infringement.
All in all, we have no possible way to know the number of English speakers in most countries as censuses do not record them, the vast majority of countries in the world have not even been the subject of a survey such as the Eurobarometer and not even the Eurobarometer measures what is claimed in this article, nor did it intend do. As the rather faulty table is all the content in the article and the only content that can be properly sourced is already found elsewhere, I suggest that this page should redirect to English language JdeJ (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an appropriate spinoff of English language #Geographical distribution, particularly since there is far more than can be said about any language besides the number of speakers. The parent article has a table regarding the seven nations with the largest population (which is about right for space limitations), and a link to this article for people who want to know about more than 7 countries. I can't tell whether the proposal is that we make the article English language much larger, or whether we just don't say anything about nations other than the U.S., Britain, Australia, Canada, India, Nigeria, and the Phillipines; but neither of those would be a good idea. The only objection that I think might be valid is the danger of doing rankings (i.e., Israel #78, Japan #80), but the sortable table would make the need for "rank" unnecessary.There are serious problems with this article, as the nominator (JdeJ) has found by taking the time to look at the cited sources. Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The table in English language could of course be lengthened with those countries for which we have sourced data, but 90% of the data for countries in this article is only guesses and even if we decide to keep the article, they would have to be removed as violation WP:OR for the reasons given above. The data in the table is not supported by the sources, it is the personal guesses of a Wikipedia editor. As the article does not containt anything else, that is the reason I propose moving the countries for which we have census results into the already existing table in English language and redirecting the article there.JdeJ (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article at English language would be TOO long if it contained a detailed table of so many countries with populations that speak the language. It belongs on its own article although the sources and content itself should be improved. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep if editorial improvements can be done Both articles bizarrely include Nigerian pidgin as English, when it is about as far from English as Dutch. "'I no know wetin u dey yarn' means 'I don't know what you are talking about' per the article on the pidgin (which is not a variety otr dialect of English). This falsely elevates Nigeria to have more English speakers than UK. Both articles also overstate the number of English speakers in India. These issues hit at the verifiability requirement and original research in the form of WP:SYNTHESIS. The topic seems notable and deserving of an article, since there have been many scholarly and popular works on the prevalence of the English language in various countries. Edison (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - claims of OR are unfounded. Some uncited numbers might be removed if they can't be cited, not a big deal. But there's no problem that requires deletion here. It is certainly not only the anglophone countries that have good census data (for instance, native speakers in Russia is hard census data). Merging to English language would immeadiately necessitate spinning back out - hence that's unviable. WilyD 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) The last hard census data on Russia is dated 1989, and significant share of legal aliens (i.e. embassy staff) were off limits. Later censuses aren't hard in any way. (b) I won't be surprised if the U.S. Embassy in Moscow employs more U.S. nationals that the number stated in the table for the whole country. Check the expat newspapers for membership stats, these may give a better estimate. Sure it halved after the economy collapsed (again :)) but it's still in five digits for Moscow alone. NVO (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the above comment is not factual. Yes, censuses in some countries record the number of native English speakers and that kind of information is fine. We could possibly have a list about that. The problem here is the number of second language speakers, such as those reported in the Eurobarometer. I would argue that anyone seriously claiming that the way the article currently uses them isn't OR simply has not understood what OR means. Taking a survey with a small sample (with only adult respondents) and using the findings of that survey to calculate one's own number of English speakers is OR, we don't even have to argue about that. The data in the table that makes up all of the article is not found in the sources, it is produced by editors trying to calculate the number of English speakers by using their own interpretation of the source. The fact that their interpretation is inaccurate is only moderately important, it would be OR even if they interpreted it correctly. We present sources, we don't interpret them. That is OR in a nutshell and that is why most of the data in the article is unsuitable.JdeJ (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepStrong keep. None of the nom's arguments (OR, copyright infringement, no survey data) hold water. (I lost a lengthy rebuttal to connection problems, so will have to respond to these points in pieces.) As Edison said, this is an important topic, with reliable sources, and the list should be kept. -- Avenue (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As you have admitted yourself now, "Some of the recent calculations in the list are badly wrong and should be deleted". Given that, I found it a bit strange that you first voted to "keep" and claimed that none of my arguments hold water, then admit that some of the data is bad but instead of weakening your "keep" when you discovered that some of the data is "badly wrong and should be deleted", you strengthen it to strong.JdeJ (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My original response (which I lost) acknowledged that some of the information was badly wrong, and should be deleted. I apologise if my making comments in batches has made them hard to follow. But I stand by my original view that none of your arguments are valid reasons for deletion of the whole list. The incorrect calculations can perhaps be viewed as OR. In any case they are wrong, and should be deleted, as we agree. But you also claimed that the original calculations from the Eurobarometer survey are OR. They are not, and that is why I believe your OR argument for deletion of the list is invalid. -- Avenue (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we have different views on OR and it might be an idea to take that argument to the OR page and get comments from others. I maintain that taking percentages from one population and calculating them on another population is OR.JdeJ (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From that comment, it seems you don't have the faintest idea what my point is. I am certainly not arguing for "taking percentages from one population and calculating them on another population". See my edit here where I explain that the figures being multiplied referred to the same population, and came from the same report. We might have the same views on OR after all. -- Avenue (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, from that comments, it seem you don't quite understand the vocabulary in statistics. The population in the Eurobarometer is the sample, nothing else. It also presents the total population over 15 in different countries, but its survey is done on a sample of that population, not on that population.JdeJ (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Eurobarometer percentages are not simply based on sample counts. They are weighted survey estimates of the true percentage in the relevant population. The 15+ population figures shown in the report were used for weighting the survey data (see the "Technical specifications" annex to the report). This means that the survey's analysts considered that the population covered by the survey was effectively the same as that estimated by the 15+ population figures. That is their judgment, not mine. -- Avenue (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, from that comments, it seem you don't quite understand the vocabulary in statistics. The population in the Eurobarometer is the sample, nothing else. It also presents the total population over 15 in different countries, but its survey is done on a sample of that population, not on that population.JdeJ (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From that comment, it seems you don't have the faintest idea what my point is. I am certainly not arguing for "taking percentages from one population and calculating them on another population". See my edit here where I explain that the figures being multiplied referred to the same population, and came from the same report. We might have the same views on OR after all. -- Avenue (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we have different views on OR and it might be an idea to take that argument to the OR page and get comments from others. I maintain that taking percentages from one population and calculating them on another population is OR.JdeJ (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My original response (which I lost) acknowledged that some of the information was badly wrong, and should be deleted. I apologise if my making comments in batches has made them hard to follow. But I stand by my original view that none of your arguments are valid reasons for deletion of the whole list. The incorrect calculations can perhaps be viewed as OR. In any case they are wrong, and should be deleted, as we agree. But you also claimed that the original calculations from the Eurobarometer survey are OR. They are not, and that is why I believe your OR argument for deletion of the list is invalid. -- Avenue (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On copyright, we do not copy all of Crystal's list (which is on just one page of his book). More importantly, we combine it with data from several sources to produce a more comprehensive list. I believe our use of his figures therefore does not constitute copyright infringement. The same is true for the Eurobarometer and Ethnologue figures (and for figures from many other sources on other Wikipedia pages).
- I'll be traveling and offline for the next couple of days, so apologies in advance if I'm slow to respond to any further queries. -- Avenue (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As it was claimed above that there is no OR in the article, here are just a few of the claims the article make
Rank | Country | % English Speakers | Total Population | Total English Speakers | As First Language | As an Additional Language | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | France | 24.82% | 64,473,140 | 16,000,000 | 16,000,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
11 | Italy | 23.48% | 59,619,290 | 14,000,000 | 14,000,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
13 | Netherlands | 72.97% | 16,445,000 | 12,000,000 | 12,000,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
14 | Spain | 21.71% | 46,063,000 | 10,000,000 | 10,000,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
16 | Poland | 24.14% | 38,115,967 | 9,200,000 | 9,200,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
17 | Turkey | 11.48% | 70,586,256 | 8,100,000 | 8,100,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
21 | Sweden | 71.62% | 9,215,021 | 6,600,000 | 6,600,000 | 2006 Eurobarometer survey. | |
73 | Ethiopia | 0.22% | 78,254,090 | 171,712 | 1,986 | 169,726 | |
99 | Honduras | 7,106,000 | 31,500 | 31,500 | |||
108 | Dominican Republic | 9,760,000 | 8,000 | 8,000 | |||
113 | Lebanon | 0.08% | 4,099,000 | 3,300 | 3,300 | ||
119 | Guadeloupe | 0.05% | 408,000 | 200 | 200 |
As can be seen, the Eurobarometer is used as the source for many of the figures. This Eurobarometer can be found here [21]. Can anyone find 6,600,000 English speakers in Sweden? 10,000,000 in Spain? 14,000,000 in Italy? Can anyone find the number of English speakers in a single country in the Eurobarometer? I doubt it, since it doesn't make any such claim. Yet this article happily uses it as a source for claiming those numbers, and we even have a user here trying to argue that that is not OR. And what about these figures for Lebanon, Honduras and other countries. No sources at all, so where do they come from? Once again, while it can be argued to keep or redirect the article, I fail to understand how anyone could claim that there is no OR here. If inventing number of speakers for countries isn't OR, then what is?JdeJ (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) First, there is nothing wrong with quoting figures from sample surveys. One fallacy you fall into here is a false dichotomy between sample surveys and censuses. Both are inaccurate to some degree. The literature on post-enumeration surveys shows that practically all census figures are not completely accurate. In the context of our list, the varying concepts used in the census questions for English speaking ability give me greater concern than the calculations on the Eurobarometer data.
- On to OR. According to WP:OR, "The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations" including calculating percentages. Multiplying the Eurobarometer English speaking percentages by the 15+ population figures given in the Eurobarometer report is a routine calculation, and does not constitute OR. For example, the figure for Sweden of 6,600,000 English speakers was calculated as 7,376,680 * 89% = 6,565,245, then rounded to two significant figures (to match the precision of the percentages reported by Eurobarometer).
- On the other hand, the more recent recalculation of percentages using total population figures, and the display of these to two decimal places, is horribly innumerate. These percentages should be deleted from the list immediately. -- Avenue (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with quoting figures from sample surveys, the problem arises when you go on to producing figures. What you have done here is to take the result from a survey on one population (the respondents in the sample) and then calculated that percentage on another population (the total population over 15). A routine calculation is counting the percentage found in a study on the population used in that study, but taking the percentage from one study and using it to make calculation on another population is no longer a "routine calculation", it is OR.JdeJ (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, let me be more explicit. We agree there is nothing wrong with quoting figures from sample surveys. There is also nothing wrong with showing figures derived by routine calculations from the survey results, as stated in our original research policy. This includes adding two percentages, calculating percentages by dividing the estimated number of people with some characteristic by the total number of people in that population (if the two numbers are from the same report), and, in my view, calculating the number of people with some characteristic by multiplying the percentage having that characteristic by the total number of people in the population (again, if the two numbers are sourced from the same report). If I understand you right, you feel that the last calculation is OR, but the second is not. I do not see any real difference between them, and I believe neither is OR. -- Avenue (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two calculations in question can be written as:
- p1 = n1 / nT
- and
- n1 = p1 * nT
- in case this is getting lost in my verbiage. -- Avenue (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing wrong with quoting figures from sample surveys, the problem arises when you go on to producing figures. What you have done here is to take the result from a survey on one population (the respondents in the sample) and then calculated that percentage on another population (the total population over 15). A routine calculation is counting the percentage found in a study on the population used in that study, but taking the percentage from one study and using it to make calculation on another population is no longer a "routine calculation", it is OR.JdeJ (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- About the unsourced numbers, I suspect they are from Ethnologue.[22]
I think that citation got dropped improperly in early 2006. I'll add it back.-- Avenue (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Journalism, perhaps? On the topic, I would not mind delete: the patchwork of real data is incompatible to the point that makes rankings useless. NVO (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete JdeJ is right. After looking at the Eurobarometer and the table above, I'm changing my vote. Percentage of English speakers is on page 14 of that report and the numbers don't at all match up with the table to which they are sourced. France, 36%; Italy 29%; Netherlands 87%; Spain 27%; etc. -- There's nothing that I see that has the precision of the numbers listed here-- 24.82% for France for instance, that's not from the 2006 report. While it's a legitimate topic in the hands of someone who has accurate information, I would not rely upon this article for anything. One of the cautions of Wikikpedia is that you shouldn't rely on it as your exclusive source for information, simply because it's not a substitute for printed sources. It's this type of article that gives Wikipedia a bad name. I'd love to be able to eat crow on this, be proven wrong, but clearly false information is the worst failing of any encyclopedia. Mandsford (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Calculating new data from numbers in a report is by definition original research. When you use a different total population for your calculation than the one listed in the study, you're further skewing the results because of improper WP:SYNTHESIS. All the reliable data is already in the English language article. The rest isn't reliable and can't be edited to fix its shortcomings, so it needs to go. - Mgm|(talk) 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just original synthesis, but badly done original synthesis. If anyone was surprised by the figure that only 89.33% of Americans speak English, it's the result of dividing the total number of English speakers over the age of 5 (English only, or speak English "very well" or "well"-- 251 million) by the entire 2000 population, of all ages -- (281,421,906). As it turns out, about 11 million of the 262 million people aged 5 and over said that they spoke English "not well" or "not at all", slightly more than 4 percent. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to JdeJ above. Some of the recent calculations in the list are badly wrong and should be deleted, including most of the percentages column, but the numbers of English speakers given are not OR. -- Avenue (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Here's another problem with using the Eurobarometer survey results in this fashion: a lot of the countries on that list have a non-negligible number of British immigrants. The survey, it seems, "covers the national population of citizens of the respective nationalities and the population of citizens of all the European Union Member States that are residents in those countries and have a sufficient command of one of the respective national language(s) to answer the questionnaire." Many of those British migrants to these countries don't have sufficient command of the national languages in question. This will skew the results slightly. JulesH (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that really true? I don't have any figures at hand, but I would suspect that there were only a few countries where English-speaking immigrants are not negligible (taking into account all the other sources of inaccuracy operating here). It might be worth a note in our article, but I don't see this as a good reason for deletion. -- Avenue (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Avenue.-gadfium 22:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The problems raised are essentially problems with how it should be edited (btw, I agree with the comment that Nigerian pidgin or other pidgins should not be included here, butt hat's for the talk p. As long as the source for the data is given, it's not OR. DGG (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this embarrassment should be taken down to someone's userspace while someone tries to figure out which parts are true and which parts are false. The citations to the 2006 Eurobarometer have been exposed by the nominator as a falsehood. The "only 89% of the people in the U.S. speak English" has been shown to have been inaccurate because nobody questioned it until now. The same incorrect information is tainting the English language article as well. Maybe someone can find a table that has been published in, say, a book or some other source that doesn't lend itself to constantly re-editing. Mandsford (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the list is currently a mess, and maybe it would be best to revert to a version without the percentage column, e.g. back in May 2008. That would be worth discussing on the list's talk page. But you don't seem to understand the situation with the Eurobarometer figures. They are not a falsehood, as I explained above. The new columns giving total populations and calculating incorrect percentages from this are the problem. And constant re-editing is the nature of Wikipedia. -- Avenue (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this embarrassment should be taken down to someone's userspace while someone tries to figure out which parts are true and which parts are false. The citations to the 2006 Eurobarometer have been exposed by the nominator as a falsehood. The "only 89% of the people in the U.S. speak English" has been shown to have been inaccurate because nobody questioned it until now. The same incorrect information is tainting the English language article as well. Maybe someone can find a table that has been published in, say, a book or some other source that doesn't lend itself to constantly re-editing. Mandsford (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't seem to understand, huh? Okay, enlighten me -- Can you tell me which page of that report says that there ar 16,000,000 English speakers in France? How about those 14 million speakers in Italy? Where's that from? Twelve million in the Netherlands? Is there a source for that? Did anyone else even look at the report (there's a link to it above)? Was there anybody, other than the nominator, who has taken the time to see whether the information was reliable? This is why it is preferable to rely upon a published table of data instead of having 100 people construct one. Mandsford (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These figures (for second language speakers of English in these countries) are based on a routine calculation from the 15+ population for each country and the proportion of this population who claim to speak English
as a second languagenot as their mother tongue. The 15+ population figures come from the second page in the "Technical specifications" annex (no page page number shown, but it's the 70th page in the PDF file), and the percentages come from table D48T on page 13. I gave a worked example for Sweden earlier in this edit. The corresponding calculation for France is 44,010,619 * 36% = 15,843,823 (rounded to 16 million), for Italy it's 49,208,000 * 29% = 14,270,320 (rounded to 14 million), and for the Netherlands it's 13,242,328 * 87% = 11,520,825 (rounded to 12 million). -- Avenue (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- right, we do not take article down while we work on them because of the present low quality--if the quality embarrasses anyone, they can and should improve it right as it stands. DGG (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If DGG were right, the article could be kept but the problem is that we simply do not have sources for most countries so the edits he are claiming could be done simply are not possible. If they were, they would probably already have been done. Nobody argues that we should not keep the countries for which we have census returns, but they make up less than 10% of the table and they are already included in another article. However, if DGG can provide sources that present the numbers of English speakers in countries such as Sweden, France, Honduras, Lebanon and others, then please do so.JdeJ (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not simply a question of whether there are census figures. For instance, we only have figures from the Swiss census on people using English as their main language. Ranking Switzerland based on that figure, while the figures for other countries include second language speakers, yields silly results (as you pointed out below). There is no standard approach to these questions across censuses from different countries. Some include second language speakers; some do not. And what qualifies someone as knowing a language varies widely. Restricting the list to census results could give a very incomplete and misleading picture as a result. -- Avenue (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If DGG were right, the article could be kept but the problem is that we simply do not have sources for most countries so the edits he are claiming could be done simply are not possible. If they were, they would probably already have been done. Nobody argues that we should not keep the countries for which we have census returns, but they make up less than 10% of the table and they are already included in another article. However, if DGG can provide sources that present the numbers of English speakers in countries such as Sweden, France, Honduras, Lebanon and others, then please do so.JdeJ (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- right, we do not take article down while we work on them because of the present low quality--if the quality embarrasses anyone, they can and should improve it right as it stands. DGG (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These figures (for second language speakers of English in these countries) are based on a routine calculation from the 15+ population for each country and the proportion of this population who claim to speak English
- Comment - As a result of the inconsistent use of sources in the article, it produces some rather strange (I could say funny) results. Switzerland and Austria are two neighbours that in many regards are very similar, including similar levels of standard of living and education. According to our article, the percentage of English speakers in Austria is 46.76% (no source supports that claim) while in Switzerland the same percentage is a meager 0.96%. The reason is of course that we use a proper source for Switzerland (the Swiss census) while we don't have a source supporting our Austrian percentage, but a reader might now know that and think there is an enormous difference between the level of English in Austria and in Switzerland.JdeJ (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment about census figures above. The problem here does not relate to the use of a sample survey versus a census, but results from comparing a figure including second language speakers to one restricted to "main language" speakers only. -- Avenue (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, if you ignore the silly percentages column, these two countries illustrate well why census figures alone are not enough. The Eurobarometer figures, although subject to some sampling error, provide a fuller picture of the situation in Austria than the limited Swiss census figures do for that country. -- Avenue (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but article should be overhauled to use only a single source. Barring that, a multi-column table with figures given by a reputable source for each column would be ok. The topic is notable enough for an article. The article may be in terrible shape but deletion is not the way to fix the article. --Polaron | Talk 15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've tried to point out many times, the problem here is the lack of such a source. Almost every user who has voted "keep" has agreed that the sources are not good but that it can be fixed with good sources. However, as stated already in the nomination, no such sources exist and that is the reason why the article looks the way it does.JdeJ (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited reference by David Crystal already includes such a table although some might not want to use that exclusively because it excludes countries where English is not the predominant native language nor an official language. A newer version of that table is in the second edition of Crystal's "English as a Global Language". Use that reference as the basis and remove figures and countries not cited in that book. Then, let other people over time add other countries where English is a classified as foreign language and ensure that the figures added are referenced to a reliable source that virtually no one disputes (e.g. a national census authority). --Polaron | Talk 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Very clear WP:SYNTHESIS violation. THF (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part do you feel is a synthesis violation? The new percentage column, or other bits as well? -- Avenue (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm taking the liberty of copying across the only response to JdeJ's AfD notification on the list's talk page. This editor also made a plea elsewhere on the talk page for retaining Nigerian pidgin in the list. -- Avenue (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why can't a survey be used as data? To be sure, the usage of these figures should be revised on the basis of what you say, but I don't think that makes the data unusable. I think this article makes a worthwhile effort to give some estimate of who speaks English in the world, and I wouldn't want to end that. Agh.niyya (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)"[reply]
- Strong Keep - The article needs work but it is a useful and noteworthy article and should not of been rushed to AFD without more debate about the articles content being held on the talk page first. Certain tags are clearly justified because of the current content but that is NO reason to simply delete an entire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not sure where all these people (including the nominator) appeared from (since I have never seen them on the talk page and I'm the person who has most criticized the article). As I've said on the talk page, the article needs to be improved, not deleted. Please read my post there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I do agree with the nominator that the numbers for European countries (and perhaps for non-Anglophone countries) are mostly unreliable and should be removed; however, I think that the table in the English page is too short. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Keep The topic itself meets WP:Notability. This primarily a sourcing dispute and unreferenced/unrealiably sourced material can be taken out, and better sourced statistics reinserted with discussion on the talk page. Failing that, Userfy for anyone who wishes to work on it. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nordic Goddess Kristen Worship her 00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raising Kaine[edit]
- Raising Kaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor blog with insufficient wider coverage by third-party RSes to warrant notability, per WP:WEB. Originally PRODded, but declined on procedural grounds even though it was me who had originally contested it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - coverage of the blog exists and are non-trivial mentions. [23], [24], and [25]. There were more search results that I didn't bother reviewing after I found these three. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources uncovered by Whpq more than establish notability. WilyD 18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Whpq's sources. - Mgm|(talk) 20:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove some of the fancruft and request better citation. Put up the citation tag! Kallimina (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator, in light of community consensus, the addition of reliable sources, as well as a removal of spam-like text –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
South Florida Fair[edit]
- South Florida Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Written like an advertisement, and doesn't indicate notability or significance. There are Google News hits, but the article is a borderline G11 in its current state. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's written like an Advertisement but there is some good about, well why not look at the things I said on the Talk Page. --12george1 (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand your argument for keeping the article. The article does not cite reliable sources. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The fair is an annual operating fair since 1912 that has received coverage sustained over a long period of time. The Sun-Sentinel has coverage here for the 2009 event and the Evening Independent has coverage here from 1917. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WHpq's sources establish notability beyond any reasonable objection. WilyD 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I noted that the subject is sufficiently notable; the reason I'm nominating this for deletion is because of the spam-like tone of the article, which in my opinion might qualify for CSD G11. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're nomination specifically states "doesn't indicate notability or significance" so you did not note that it was sufficiently notable. Per WP:AFD, if you thought this article was notable but had issues with it reading like an advert, you could have cleaned it up oyurself, or identified for other editors to review with tage like {{advert}}. And I would disagree that this article's tone is so advertising like that it qualifies for a speedy deletion. As you agree it is notable, I suggest that you withdraw the nomination. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being notable and indicating notability in the article itself are two entirely different things. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete articles on notable subjects, we improve them through editting. If all that was missing was an assertion of notability, you could have added it yourself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not all that's missing. The article is, by and large, written like an advertisement. We have a CSD for that, so I don't feel that my objection to the article is unreasonable. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete articles on notable subjects, we improve them through editting. If all that was missing was an assertion of notability, you could have added it yourself. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being notable and indicating notability in the article itself are two entirely different things. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewrite required isn't "fundamental" but "cosmetic". One might reasonably cut down as an editorial (not AFD) action. WilyD 18:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "From historic Yesteryear Village to the more than eighty cutting-edge rides of the midway and the huge kiddie midway, the South Florida Fair offers something exciting for all ages. Visit the Expo Center for the Americraft and other displays." That, at least in my eyes, requires a complete rewrite, as does much of the rest of the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
- A good chunk. But deletion is only a remedy where removing all the spammy bits would result in the page no longer having any content, which's not the case here. Essentially, if removing the spammy bits would make it a valid A1, then it's a valid G11. WilyD 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it seems to me that without the advertisement-like stuff, the article would be a few words long, a sentence at most. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good chunk. But deletion is only a remedy where removing all the spammy bits would result in the page no longer having any content, which's not the case here. Essentially, if removing the spammy bits would make it a valid A1, then it's a valid G11. WilyD 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "From historic Yesteryear Village to the more than eighty cutting-edge rides of the midway and the huge kiddie midway, the South Florida Fair offers something exciting for all ages. Visit the Expo Center for the Americraft and other displays." That, at least in my eyes, requires a complete rewrite, as does much of the rest of the text. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
- You're nomination specifically states "doesn't indicate notability or significance" so you did not note that it was sufficiently notable. Per WP:AFD, if you thought this article was notable but had issues with it reading like an advert, you could have cleaned it up oyurself, or identified for other editors to review with tage like {{advert}}. And I would disagree that this article's tone is so advertising like that it qualifies for a speedy deletion. As you agree it is notable, I suggest that you withdraw the nomination. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I noted that the subject is sufficiently notable; the reason I'm nominating this for deletion is because of the spam-like tone of the article, which in my opinion might qualify for CSD G11. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The South Florida Fair is a notable event. Why delete this while keeping more trivial information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteU (talk • contribs) 15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have edited the article in a way that takes care of this concern, and it will be moved to Koren. Incidentally, I also removed the original sole entry. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Koren (disambiguation)[edit]
- Koren (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod declined on the grounds that this is not an article. Disambiguation page with only one valid target, which is itself listed for prod. Being in the mainspace, it is not eligible for WP:MFD. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Koren: A search of Wikipedia shows that Koren can refer to a lot of people which makes an expanded dab page a viable page. - Mgm|(talk) 13:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.T. Thomas (linebacker)[edit]
- J.T. Thomas (linebacker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a sophomore football player. I see no notability for this article; he has won no awards (except "scout team player of the year at WVU", which is not a notable award) and has only a few highlights as a player. Lots of people have a few highlights; this does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Completely unnotable Timneu22 (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It would be permissible to put this and the other four articles in a group nomination, given that the common thread is that they are all the product of someone's attempt to make individual biographies of this year's West Virginia University Mountaineers football team. I appreciate the nominator's decision to make individual nominations out of fairness concerns, but the article creator hasn't distinguished between players. As Category:West Virginia Mountaineers football players demonstrates, somebody has created a shrine for their favorite team, and there are more than these five articles. We live in a strange world where some people would debate whether an individual brain surgeon is notable, but believe that all college athletes are entitled to their own Happy Meal toy. Mandsford (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as non-notable. Fails WP: Notability_(sports). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Being the Defensive Scout Team player of the year isn't even close to being notable.--Iamawesome800 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sidney Glover[edit]
- Sidney Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a sophomore football player. I see no notability for this article; he has won no awards and has a total of 61 career tackles in NCAA football. Completely unnotable Timneu22 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete While I'm willing to set aside WP:athlete's requirements in the face of non trivial coverage by 3rd party sources, I do not find such. The profile at WYU does not show the subject to be notable. Dlohcierekim 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It would be permissible to put this and the other four articles in a group nomination, given that the common thread is that they are all the product of someone's attempt to make individual biographies of this year's West Virginia University Mountaineers football team. I appreciate the nominator's decision to make individual nominations out of fairness concerns, but the article creator hasn't distinguished between players. As Category:West Virginia Mountaineers football players demonstrates, somebody has created a shrine for their favorite team, and there are more than these five articles. We live in a strange world where some people would debate whether an individual brain surgeon is notable, but believe that all college athletes are entitled to their own Happy Meal toy. Mandsford (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTABILITY.--Iamawesome800 23:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brandon Hogan[edit]
- Brandon Hogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a sophomore football player. I see no notability for this article; he has a total of 60 career tackles in NCAA football. Completely unnotable Timneu22 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It would be permissible to put this and the other four articles in a group nomination, given that the common thread is that they are all the product of someone's attempt to make individual biographies of this year's West Virginia University Mountaineers football team. I appreciate the nominator's decision to make individual nominations out of fairness concerns, but the article creator hasn't distinguished between players. As Category:West Virginia Mountaineers football players demonstrates, somebody has created a shrine for their favorite team, and there are more than these five articles. We live in a strange world where some people would debate whether an individual brain surgeon is notable, but believe that all college athletes are entitled to their own Happy Meal toy. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
very weak keepdelete claim to notability is too tenuousI'm willing to aver look not meeting WP:Athlete if the subject has significant 3rd party coverage. It's really hard getting significant coverage on the subject, despite all the Google News hits. I'm going to say that leading the team to a 14-0 record and the state championship is significant enough to raise him to a low level of notability. In aggregate, the trivial coverage adds up, but this is a very tenacious claim to notability.And no, lets keep them separate. We need to look at each individually. Dlohcierekim 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Not really. Dlohcierekim 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTABILITY--Iamawesome800 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Leonard[edit]
- Anthony Leonard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a sophomore football player. I see no notability for this article; he has a total of 71 career tackles in NCAA football. Completely unnotable. Timneu22 (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It would be permissible to put this and the other four articles in a group nomination, given that the common thread is that they are all the product of someone's attempt to make individual biographies of this year's West Virginia University Mountaineers football team. I appreciate the nominator's decision to make individual nominations out of fairness concerns, but the article creator hasn't distinguished between players. As Category:West Virginia Mountaineers football players demonstrates, somebody has created a shrine for their favorite team, and there are more than these five articles. We live in a strange world where some people would debate whether an individual brain surgeon is notable, but believe that all college athletes are entitled to their own Happy Meal toy. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Once again, lacking in significant media coverage, third party sourcing is trivial at best. No indication of significance on the profile page, the only link it the article. 3rd party sources not presented in the article to support all of the content, BTW. Does not meet WP:Athlete or WP:BIO. Dlohcierekim 16:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTABILITY--Iamawesome800 Talk 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Sands (football player)[edit]
- Robert Sands (football player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article's creator has a habit of creating articles for borderline-notable or non-notable subjects. This article in question is about a freshman football player. I see no notability for this article; he has won no awards and it seems his biggest highlight is a forced fumble. Timneu22 (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all It would be permissible to put this and the other four articles in a group nomination, given that the common thread is that they are all the product of someone's attempt to make individual biographies of this year's West Virginia University Mountaineers football team. I appreciate the nominator's decision to make individual nominations out of fairness concerns, but the article creator hasn't distinguished between players. As Category:West Virginia Mountaineers football players demonstrates, somebody has created a shrine for their favorite team, and there are more than these five articles. We live in a strange world where some people would debate whether an individual brain surgeon is notable, but believe that all college athletes are entitled to their own Happy Meal toy. Mandsford (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete again does not meet the significant 3rd party coverage of WP:BIO. No assertion of notability in the profile, the only source in the article. (In aggregate, these would be better suited to a personal webpage. Wikipedia is not a place to enshrine college football players. This comment applies to all three.)Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Agree; I suggested to the editor that he should create a Wikia page. Timneu22 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Wrench[edit]
- Sarah Wrench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The only biographical information given is speculation (that she was a witch). A reliable source (an Essex guide book) gives a more plausible explanation--that the cage is a mortsafe, used to protect bodies from grave snatching. No other information exists for this person. The entry only exists because an ignorant person made up a wild story about the cage being to stop a witch rising again, and another ignorant person (or perhaps the same one) wrote that down. It's the kind of story that attracts a certain kind of imagination, but it is about as far from being verifiable as it would be possible to get short of typing random syllables into Wikipedia articles.
On the source, I have already discussed its lack of reliability at the reliable source noticeboard. There is consensus that as a self-published source it is not reliable. TS 10:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Topic is notable and as evidenced by the nominator discussed (albeit briefly) in reliable sources. Notable as an item of folklore that is described in books on folklore while being essentially debunked in mainstream press. Both theories as to the origin of the cage should be described in the article (to only mention one theory, as the article does at the moment, is clearly not NPOV). The 'paranormal database' reference can be removed without substantially damaging the article, particularly as the site does not actually say what it is being used as a reference for. JulesH (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps retitling the article to Grave of Sarah Wrench in order to more accurately reflect what is interesting here would be appropriate? JulesH (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what do we reliably know about the grave of Sarah Wrench? That it's mentioned very briefly, in a single sentence, in a local guide book of Essex. This might justify a mention in Mersea Island, but hardly an article on its own. Perhaps a merge? --TS 10:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not just "a local guidebook", that's Pevsner, which is generally considered as the canonical guide to English architecture of interest. A mention in Pevsner is a strong indication of notability in an architectural sensse, let alone tales of witchcraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There doesn't seem to be any mention of poor Miss Wrench outside of the cited book about offbeat tourist attractions in the U.K., and it's obvious from the text of that book [26] that the authors went to great pains to try to say something interesting about a mort safe. Clues are "little is known"; "has led to a belief"; "it is claimed"; etc.. From what I gather, people who have to visit Mersea Island stop at West Mersea and don't go east from there. Worth a mention in mortsafe or the stub article about East Mersea, but this is pretty pathetic as mysteries go. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established the usual way. If tourist traps weren't notable, they wouldn't be traps. WilyD 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The mortsafe continued to guard her grave after the purpose of such devices had been forgotten. It may have been unusual in the location; if the decedent was a young girl, the family may have feared other kinds of tampering beside dissection. As such, a local legend sprung up. Both the grave and the legend are confirmed by sources. The alternative explanation should be included. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability isnt in question here. Archivey (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Legends and even hoaxes can be notable (*cough*). This is a question of notability, and even as a legend it is the subject of secondary sources, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A fifteen year old girl died and was buried in a protective device to prevent graverobbing. This does not establish notability, and the brief mention in a guidebook is also not sufficient. No 1848 sources have been presented to support the wild and unsourced claim by paranormalists that she was regarded as a witch, or that the mortsafe was installed by anyone other than grieving parents, much as such parents today might pay for an elaborate and expensive burial vault] even when the cemetary doesn't require one. Edison (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable enough to have generated a long-lived tale, and it's not our place to rule on the truth of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless additional sources can be found. The ones given are not sufficient to show anything notable. DGG (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was : I arrogantly and arbitrarily redirected this article to Full Documentation Loan, and am closing this AfD in an equally peremptory way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full Doc Loan[edit]
- Full Doc Loan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. No need for this "term" to have its own article, can be easily included in the Full Documentation Loan article, if it can be documented somehow. MrShamrock (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to San Jacinto Fault and closed as moot. There seems to be fairly broad agreement that this information belongs there rather than in a separate article, and it has been merged. I see no reason to erase the history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Bloomington earthquake[edit]
- 2009 Bloomington earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Questionable notability; although this was considered a moderate earthquake by the USGS, is every moderate earthquake that causes no damage worthy of an article? This one fails WP:NOTE because it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikinews would be far more appropriate. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Gmatsuda (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bloomington since there's not enough information to sustain a separate entry. P.S. There is such a thing as transwikification, a process in which the article would be moved from one wiki to another prior to speedy deletion. If you perform that, you don't need an AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A tremor that was 4.5 on the Richter scale is considered pretty light. "There are not yet any reports of damages or injuries." No? Keep looking, maybe a glass of red wine tipped over on a white carpet. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 4.5 earthquake in the middle of an earthquake-prone zone is not a major geological event, it is a soon-forgotten news story, even on the local scale. Although 4.5 does not seem far away from 6.0 earthquakes which cause damage, remember that the Richter scale is logarithmic, and a difference in 1.5 means the quake is 160 times less powerful. With no damage reported, I think this is less notable than a car accident. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge, apparently, to
either Bloomington, California- or better, if it is ascertained which fault caused the earthquake, and we have an article on that fault, to the article on the fault. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to San Jacinto Fault, the fault that caused the earthquake at issue.[27] - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added most of the text of this article to a new section "Events" in the San Jacinto Fault article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is the essence of a local news item. A 4.5 quake causing no damage or injury is just a recurring event in a quake prone zone.I do not support a merge as the quake is essentially some trivia in the Bloomington article.-- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: After confirming that this earthquake did indeed occur on the San Jacinto Fault, I support merging this article into that one. If that is to be the case, I would be happy to withdraw this AfD, if that's necessary. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to San Jacinto Fault. SMSpivey (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diana La Cazadora[edit]
- Diana La Cazadora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable wrestler, the fact that she works for CMLL now and again isn’t enough to make her notable by itself. The two citations prove nothing but the fact that she had a match for CMLL and worked for LLF, nothing to prove notability. She does not warrant a wikipedia article. Fails WP:N and WP:V for anything other than the most basic proof of existence. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another wrestler probably made by an ip or someone who doesn't know notability rules. Done nothing that would say notability in my mind besides winning a tag belt with Nikki Roxx and working for CMLL.--WillC 08:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as in my view she is not notable outside of Mexico at this point in time. TrekFanatic (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep was featured on national television France 2 in one of the most popular shows of my home country, France. Has therefore achieved international notability, she satisfies WP:N contrary to what is stated above. This reference says "It's fair to say that one of the biggest stars in Lucha Libre Femenil is Diana la Cazadora." so this is verifiable. Video from a France 2 show is available on YouTube, verifiable as well.Hektor (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the comment "one of the biggest stars in Lucha Libre Femenil" means nothing notable since the federation itself isn't in itself notable enough for Wikipedia. And "international notabilty" should easily be backed up with reliable sourced references, not a quote from the LLF's own website. MPJ-DK (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre is a notable organization 1. I didn't know that WP:N was about "international notability" or that someone has to be notable outside of Mexico to warrant an article in Wikipedia.
- CMLL is indeed notable, but just working for them is in itself not enough to give notability to a wrestler, they have to do something of note there. it's a step on the way but in itself working for CMLL isn't enough to give you notability IMO. and the "International Notability" was a comment on a statement, it was states that she was "internationally notable" to which I say "then prove it". MPJ-DK (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, she got extensive coverage, from France 2, which is a mainstream media, therefore outside of the wrestling circles and outside of her country, since this was in France. The France 2 video also says she has her own TV show on Mexican television. Hektor (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it, don't say it - come up with something verifiable from a reliable source, it's really that simple.MPJ-DK (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, she got extensive coverage, from France 2, which is a mainstream media, therefore outside of the wrestling circles and outside of her country, since this was in France. The France 2 video also says she has her own TV show on Mexican television. Hektor (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CMLL is indeed notable, but just working for them is in itself not enough to give notability to a wrestler, they have to do something of note there. it's a step on the way but in itself working for CMLL isn't enough to give you notability IMO. and the "International Notability" was a comment on a statement, it was states that she was "internationally notable" to which I say "then prove it". MPJ-DK (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre is a notable organization 1. I didn't know that WP:N was about "international notability" or that someone has to be notable outside of Mexico to warrant an article in Wikipedia.
- Weak keep - Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Athletes: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." - For wrestlers, this is usually interpreted as people who have competed in a major promotion. She has worked for CMLL and AAA, which are two of the biggest (if not the two biggest) promotions in Mexico. I'm voting weak keep, though, because I don't know how regularly she competes for them. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She is a bit notable. If more sources can collected, then it would be much better. ₰imonKSK 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep--She has an article in Lucha Wiki, not a reliable source meeting Wikipedia's standards, but helpful in establishing notability for the subject. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd say it's worth keeping her but it's probably worth expanding upon the article where possible to make it more extensive and informative of Diana afkatk (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Brooks (internet dating/social networking expert)[edit]
- Mark Brooks (internet dating/social networking expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite the long list of "media mentions", I am dubious about this guy's notability. I suspect it is self-promotional. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The articles don't seem to address the subject himself. The most we could source to them is "Mark Brooks runs the popular online dating industry website Online Personals Watch", which wouldn't be a particularly interesting article. JulesH (talk) 09:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this non-notable, self-promoting vanity article immediately. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. How is he not notable? When the press wants an expert on either social networking or internet dating, they call him. Hence the notations from The New York Times, Chicago Tribune. He also heads up the Internet Dating & Social Networking Conferences and is currently the President of the Internet Dating Executive Alliance. This seems more notable than the other Mark Brooks that draws comic books and has a page on here. Blm0303 (talk)
- He isn't notable because nobody has ever written about him, rather than simply quoting him as an expert on a particular subject. See the notability guidelines at WP:BIO and particularly WP:N for an explanation of why this is necessary. Mark Brooks (comics) may or may not be notable, depending on what has been written about him. If somebody nominates his article for deletion, we'll end up looking to find out. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. JulesH (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I am extremely skeptical about articles for this sort of professional notability, but I think the references here are actually sufficient. A very wide range of publications--even the Christian Science Monitor, consider him an expert. the articles should be written around this, not about his miscellaneous non-notable earlier positions. DGG (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You suggest that the article should be sourced to his quotes to the media. But the result would be an article that is either (1) a resume for Brooks, not a biography of him, or (2) a POV fork of Internet dating solely presenting Brooks' views on the subject. Evidence that Brooks is a respected expert is a good argument for why his views should be presented at Internet dating, but a bad argument for why Brooks himself warrants an article. Read JulesH's comment again, right above yours, for more on why expertise is not notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- that was not exactly what I meant, it should be sourced by the articles written by other people, citing the remarks of the named journalists in many notable publications, that he is an expert. DGG (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a resume. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would including a list of people he has interviewed help? I have a list of CEO's from both the internet dating community and the social networking community that he has interviewed. They think he is notable enough to give their time. He's even interviewed Steve Wozniak from apple (http://www.socialnetworkingwatch.com/2008/08/steve-wozniak-.html).Blm0303 (talk)
- Again, that sort of info would nicely enhance Brooks' personal resume, but Wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Even if the people he interviewed consider him "notable" in some sense, that is not what is meant by wikipedia:notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of terms of endearment[edit]
- List of terms of endearment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As with the last AfD, this article is totally unsourced, and has become a dumping ground for anything anybody wishes to put here. Old fruit? Man in the Pickle Suit? iPod? Newfoundland? Whack-a-mole? No. This is an indiscriminate list: anything that someone uses as a term of endearment could go here. If there are a few particularly notable ones, they should be added to the main article, with citations. This list needs to go. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indescriminate list which is inherently full of all kinds of hoaxes and madeup stuff. If I call my girlfriend Quetzalcoatl tonight, shall I add it to the list tomorrow? Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, for the vast majority of the list, WP:V Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely un-encyclopedic, subjective and pointless. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLinks. I think it fits, and most exemplifies, the Cat. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge heavily reduced version back into Terms of endearment. This list is rife with original research entries of uncommon terms. The article should contain the common entries like Darling, Baby or Honey (either not linked or linked to RELEVANT articles). Any of the entries that are not common knowledge like these should either be referenced or removed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem to be concensus of the Editors of the Parent Article that it is better as a Spinout Article. Do you not believe that it would make the Parent Article "cluttered."? And why would you believe a limitation of "the common entries" is a good thing for an Encyclopedia. Do readers not come to WP to find new and uncommonly known things? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 6, and 10. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - useful, encyclopaedic list. "Needs some editing" is not a deletion criterion. WilyD 14:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't a list of things that are likely to justify encyclopedia articles - words and terms belong in a dictionary. Lists of related words don't belong here. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- either improve or delete--- either course would be an improvement over the unreferenced undefined unlinked list there at present. If nobody is willing to promise to fix it, it would be better deleted. DGG (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
- comment Wookie? The list is fairly awesome, but totally unsourced and probably needs to be started from scratch if at all. Okay pookums? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This category within Wiktionary is the way to access such a list of terms for anyone with the desire to do so. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That list has 15 names. The article has 259, after I trimmed the more obvious examples of unique personal/spoofs such as 'Wookie' and 'Bantha'. Every single vote to delete here is based on good editing ideas, that have nothing whatsoever to do with an AfD discussion, other than Stifle's essay assay, which is just plain wrong.
- Comment That list has 15 names. The article has 259, after I trimmed the more obvious examples of unique personal/spoofs such as 'Wookie' and 'Bantha'. Every single vote to delete here is based on good editing ideas, that have nothing whatsoever to do with an AfD discussion, other than Stifle's essay assay, which is just plain wrong.
- WP:LC
- "2: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" I had really better just not say some of the things that come to mind on this subject. Suffice it to say that the rule itself requires one to more or less make assumptions in a way contrary to the principle behind WP:AGF, ie mindreading. In this case, the mindreading is to be performed on the entire WP readership at once.
- "4: The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable." Or to put it another way, WP:LC is an essay that uses namedropping of WP:V and WP:NOTE.
- "6: The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable." This insidious charge appears reasonable, but is soon shown to be ludicrous. See my recent edit to the page. One just deletes the dubious entries, it's that simple.
- "10: Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas." This rule, when you consider that all articles are required to contain no OR and SYNTH, is thereby a tautology, particularly in combination with number 4 or one of the rules from which 4 is, shall we say, 'derived'. Either an entry on a list is empirically observable, or verifiable, or it is not placable under OR in the first place. (2 edits) Anarchangel (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:LIST as an indiscriminate list of many NN ideas, per above. Or merge back into Terms of endearment, a valid scholarly topic for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Userspace, delete, repair, and restore This list has certainly flown far out of hand, and for now, it should be redirected or deleted after being copied into userspace where it can be cut down and then restored. I will even begin paring the list now. Tealwisp (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander William Pressey[edit]
- Alexander William Pressey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This SPA created article does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guideline. A Google search for "A.W. Pressey" does return a few papers and such (along side many false hits), but not enough to meet WP: Notability (academics) as near as I can tell. Article appears to have been created by Mr. Pressey. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, so Delete it. The nominator said this very well. I would say keep but without references and citations (and the google search nontheless), there isn't a good reason too. K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 06:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete' some more information on this person can be found in WP.... See Libertarian Party candidates, 1995 Manitoba provincial election. Web of Science lists 53 publications (a few of these may just be meeting abstracts) that have been cited a total of 685 times. H-index of 17, most-cited article got 97 citations. While nothing to be ashamed of, I consider these figures to be on the lower end of the scale given that they apply to a whole 35-year career. I expect that some may disagree with me on this. --Crusio (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to the article, he was elected fellow of the Canadian Psychological Association in 1973, which may show notability. Here's a list of fellows, but I don't see him on it. Eight were elected in 2008. Perhaps he is no longer living?John Z (talk) 09:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Relatively low citation impact. A Google News search returns no hits. The CPA fellowship claim fails WP:V.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cynthia Harrell[edit]
- Cynthia Harrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Completely lacks notability, obvious extremely poor formatting MrShamrock (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Nasica (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find any press coverage etc to satisfy the generic notability policy, and she doesn't meet any of the specific criteria in WP:BAND either - hasn't released any albums, hasn't charted, and the award she's won from the 'Game Audio Network Guild' isn't major enough to qualify her under criterion 8. As per criterion 10, it would be more appropriate to give her a mention in the articles for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night and Metal Gear Solid 3. Nasica (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've cleaned up the article and added a bit to it so discussants won't be influenced by its previous dire format. However, there is simply not sufficient coverage of her to support independent notability, or at least none that I could find. She sang background vocals for several notable singers and is the sister of a notable songwriter (Kuk Harrell), but that's about it. I'm not sure the "award" necessarily went to her anyway. She didn't write the song - she only performed it. By the way, she's already mentioned in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater Original Soundtrack and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Voceditenore (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacking sources indicating notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ami Sands Brodoff[edit]
- Ami Sands Brodoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As far as my research has gone, this author has never won a major award, has never made a top book list, and the main stream media coverage of her work is limited. She has authored work in major media outlets in Canada, but that is not notable. Hampton (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My continued research into this has shown that her husband's name is "Michael Atkin" who is mentioned in a blog post http://chez-ami.blogspot.com/2008/11/grande-celebration.html and the primary editing users are User:Michaelatkin2009 and User:Atkint. Both accounts have been removed. This is obviously a WP:COI and possibly WP:SPAM. Hampton (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "removed"? Those editors are brand new, few edits and no evidence of blocks or bans. Also, COI is not a valid reason for deletion and spam is something that can be cleaned up. Please evaluate based on the merits (or lack thereof) of the article, not the authors. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral While she may not have won awards, the Pushcart Prize is prestigious enough for a nomination to be notable too. Unfortunately, I have no idea if this was a nomination from the publication she wrote for or a shortlisted nomination by the organization sifting through the incoming nominations. That warrants further checking. The Re-Lit Award she was shortlisted for is judged and maintained by established author Kenneth J. Harvey. Together with [28] and [29] I think a weak case for notability is possible which would be stronger if more sources come to light. - Mgm|(talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable author. Three novels, held in 63, 12, 21 Worlddcat libraries. For a popular novelist, this is altogether negligible. The nominated item was a single short story. DGG (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While a Pushcart nomination in itself does not suggest notability, a Pushcart nomination from Triquarterly, one of the oldest and most prestigious literary journals in the United States, certainly suggests notability. Combined with her three-books, I think this puts her over the threshold. COI is not grounds for deletion. Vartanza (talk) 04:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider ES-65[edit]
- Schneider ES-65 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a prototype glider, with no independent sources. I am not an expert in unpowered flight, but I am not sure that this particular glider is notable. I am willing, however, to be persuaded. Mattinbgn\talk 03:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete because this site did prove lots of information... but it still didn't point anything significant out. Plus it was already mentioned in the article as an external link. I am part of WikiProject Aviation and still don't see this article containing anything too special. K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) - see section on "Unique vehicles". Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not the most interesting aircraft ever, but it seems to demonstrate notability to our bare criteria. Wouldn't bother to write the article myself, but I see no cause to delete it either. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This was the last glider designed and built by Edmund Schneider Pty Ltd. One of the first was the Schneider Grunau Baby. The article is shamefully sparse at present but it deserves to be expanded, and other articles created to cover the more successful glider types produced in Australia by Edmund Schneider Pty Ltd. I am willing to work towards expanding that coverage. Dolphin51 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - just really needs more work rather than deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deerfield Square[edit]
- Deerfield Square (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable shopping mall. Only sources are Crain's Chicago and a primary source. No secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / redirect back to Deerfield, Illinois. (BTW, the AfD notice on the page is malformed. It shows up as a redlink. I'd fix it myself but can't make sense of the template hash....) --Lockley (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try purging the server's cache next time by changing "action=edit" in the URL of the edit page to "action=purge" and hit the browser's "go" arrow. Does wonders. MuZemike 07:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - easy enough to establish notability [30] + [31] + [32] + [33] and so on. No need for nonsense, this is not an unusual case. WilyD 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all local coverage or trivial, and AfD is hardly "nonsense". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:43, 14 January 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) 00:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I'm finding plenty of coverage of the history of this center, in the Chicago Tribune. I would not discount that as "local coverage", and WP:N does not discourage the use of local sources, if they are substantial enough, to establish notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Riverside High School (Launceston)[edit]
- Riverside High School (Launceston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:ORG, nothing really notable about this school to justify its own article. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this was anything other than a school deletion as original reseach would be a no-brainer. However, given that the article is about a place of learning, the article will no doubt be kept, along with the articles on other high schools in Launceston, Launceston College and Brooks High School (Launceston, Tasmania), all shining examples of the typical school article. If editors focused on the quality of school articles as much as they do on the quantity, the encyclopedia would be much better off. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Launceston, Tasmania - I've merged the single sourced sentence there. For a complete article on Launceston, discussion about eduction is required. For this school though there is no significant mention, beyond directory entries and passing notes, in reliable sources - Peripitus (Talk) 04:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think the Launceston article is the place for details about schools. You would also need to include other high schools from the area too - Kings Meadow High, Queechy High, Prospect High. I think that would be too much for the Launceston article.Barrylb (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since all high schools are found to be notable if enough work is done, this is the stub for a valid article. Instead of trying to delete, look for sources. One cannot say there are no valid sources available unless one has checked local print material. Is there no newspaper in the area? DGG (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable or not for schools is a debate that will never end here. I take on board the comment by Mattinbgn as most pertinent. If we merge to the Launceston article we keep the material and provide perhaps a more visible place to improve it. If it grows excessively large it can bud off in the normal way. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because...well...DGG said it. High schools are found to be notable. I know it is a debate, but I support the fact they are worth mentioning... K50 Dude ROCKS! 06:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the fact the article is only four months old and there are not a lot of local editors and even less that attented the school, it is quite hard to expect this to be a quality article, I do believe that even if this is deleted it will only be re-created again. Stony ¿ 07:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Launceston, Tasmania. There's not enough material to support a separate article and adding other schools to make things complete as per Barrylb wouldn't take up too much space. If any of the schools wwarrant more coverage, the town article can have a one line mention with a link to an expanded article on the school. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've made a few edits to the article. High schools aren't in and of themselves notable, but see the essay Wikipedia:High Schools. My own opinion is Strong keep, but I will and must defer to the consensus outcome.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete There's a serious misunderstanding here. Australian public education doesn't stop at the 10th grade. Riverside would not fall in the inherently notable category, because it is not a senior high school and does not confer a diploma. It goes only as far as 10th grade, whereas to earn the equivalent of a high school diploma, the Tasmanian Certificate of Education, one has to complete the equivalent of senior high school level (11th or 12th). The rationale for finding a high school notable is that it provides the highest certification available in a school district, and Launceston, Tasmania #Education goes beyond the 10th grade. Unless someone can go straight from Riverside to the university, it's not inherently notable. Mandsford (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - far exceeds the usual standard of sourcing demanded of such schools. WilyD 14:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - like all public high schools this is a public institution which plays an important role in its community. Sources available to meet WP:ORG. Such pages should be expanded not put up for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Like Terriers and DGG, I'm a staunch defender of the proposition of inherent notability for the highest level institution in a school district, which in America we refer to as a high school or a senior high school. Again, it's a question of semantics; the terms "high school" and "college" have different meanings in the United States and in Australia. The equivalent to the high school in Launceston is Launceston College, which confers a "certificate of education". In the U.S., the terms "college" and "university" are use interchangeably, but that's not true everywhere. In other nations, "college" is a synonym for "senior high school". All schools play an important role in their communities, but we've kind of compromised on the senior high school as the most important of those schools because it provides the highest level of education in the school district. It may be that Riverside has demonstrated its notability in the same way that an American middle school might, either by recognition or by virtue of a notable alumnus, but it isn't inherently (i.e. beyond debate) notable. Mandsford (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - How is it any different to any other school on wikipedia?? I don't understand why it was put up for deletion! A part of the article was merged into the Launceston article, but i removed it because a list of 'High Schools' would make a mess of the article. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a student of the school, I could add a lot information about it, but then it would need sources and there isn't a lot about the school on the net.
- Comment There is no Wikipedia policy which states all schools are notable and must have an article, they still must meet WP:ORG in particular significant third party coverage. Otherwise, all it gets is a one line mention in a locality article. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looks to be a valid high school stub article. Passes WP:N. Refs seem ok and a couple of notable alumni mention. Keep and expand.--Sting Buzz Me... 23:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to district most of the information in the article is not verifiable, and this is not a high school under the definition for which Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) was written. This is more like a middle school. Even if it was (grammer wonks might prefer even if it were for the subjunctive, but I don't like it), the article needs to have encyclopedic content that is verifiable. Note that I usually don't !vote delete/merge on high school articles (being the author of the essay linked above). Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poplar Creek Crossing[edit]
- Poplar Creek Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spammy article on strip mall under development. Only sources found were PR pieces. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - easy to establish notability - [34] + [35] + [36] + [37] and so on. WilyD 14:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found above. I don't see anything here being construed as blatant advertisement, so G11 doesn't apply. MuZemike 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American Top 40 Charts of June 2008[edit]
- American Top 40 Charts of June 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a useful list at all. One particular month from one particular chart? No sources and not very useful. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This can probably be speedied as a copyvio of Mediabase 24/7's information. It's not even one month, it's one week! Nate • (chatter) 06:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (speedily if possible) This is material best covered by linking to an off-site database. Otherwise, we'd set precedent for creation of hundreds of articles that are basically a copyright violation of the site mentioned. While there is no creativity involved in the listing, there is significant work involved in creating the listing to begin with, which means it's copyright protected. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This would have been speedied back in August, but someone who wasn't involved with the article removed the ProD with the statement "I don't like the article, it need not be deleted." Even the creator of the article did not attempt to create another one. Mandsford (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia:Listcruft --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Wikipedia is not a weekly music chart; information can easily be obtained through the proper sites (Mediabase 24/7, Billboard, etc.) and each site's archives; I do not believe that Wikipedia is the place for this, however. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)]][reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Timp[edit]
- Greg Timp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO. Also a possible COI since it was created by User:Htimp and the only edits by the user were related to the Greg Timp article.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Several highly cited papers in Nature and Phys. Rev. Lett. according to Google scholar look like a pass of WP:PROF #1. And according to his web site bio he's a fellow of APS, AAAS, and IEEE, any one of which would be enough for #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per David Eppstein. COI is not a reason for AfD and notability could easily be checked by using Google. Cleanup and expand the article, but let's not waste more time on this AfD. --Crusio (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Diary (film)[edit]
- The Diary (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Principle shooting does not appear to have commenced, no page should exist as per Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films - Tryptofeng (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral... I hesitate to cast a !vote since this planned foreign-language film may be reliably sourced in foreign-language publications. Can anyone familiar with Chinese publications check for the last update of this project? —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per James Burns. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like most inchoate subjects, the article isn't really about the subject at all but about the release; a stand in for real content and all material that would go by the wayside if the actual subject existed and there was something substantive to write about. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blood Colony[edit]
- Blood Colony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: lacks mutliple 3rd party sources, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as the article has now been cleaned up and sourced per film MOS. It does now have coverage in reliable sources... but it is weak. I have tagged it for WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 4 January 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) 00:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hopefully Mr. holcomb will become notable and some of this information can be included in his article. This subject does no appear notable per guidelines as there hasn't been substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - Article in current form has sufficient sources to establish notability. Raitchison (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- plenty of sources, maybe it lacked sources when nominated. If so it has them now. Geo Swan (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pen & Quill[edit]
- The Pen & Quill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely self-referenced. Not notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's discussed a bit here [38] and appears to have lots of mentions in various newspapers here [39] according to google news, indicating it is a notable publication in its field. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience newspapers and magazines rarely write much about other newspapers and magazines. So while I agree the coverage isn't very substantial, the coverage does seem to assert that this publication is an authority and well repected in its field. As such it seems reasonable to include it. How many well established decades old publications on autographs are there after all? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The book appears to be written by the same people who write or at least sponsor the newsletter. Only a trivial mention in newspapers, doesn't satisfy WP:N the article has to be about the subject in question. Good finds though! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could someone with access to the New York Times have a look in the archives? There's this story[40] and this citation included in the article :The New York Times, May 21, 1976 11. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have historical NYT archives. The publication is only mentioned because they talk to the editor of the magazine. The actual article doesn't talk about the publication at all. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment addendum There are also quite a few stories that mention the parent club: [41] ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to addendum As noted in this NYT story [42], "The Universal Autograph Collectors Club, the largest nonprofit autograph collectors' association, lists more than 200 registered dealers," the group appears to be quite notable even if their publication isn't. So a merge to a new article about the club would also be a good option. The more I look into it the less I think deletion is a good outcome. But maybe someone has a different take? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep seems to be notable, based on what documentation there is. DGG (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gator Party Bus[edit]
- Gator Party Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is asserted, but the creator has been unable to provide non-trivial third-party sources to establish notability. The one reference provided, here, is quite trivial, as it mentions the bus only in the caption of a picture. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability not established and likely impossible to establish. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 02:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above, after reading the article, I just get the feeling one of the listed owners is also the author of the article SimonX (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable at the University of Florida, let alone the rest of the world. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guntmar Wolff[edit]
- Speedy Delete I am the author of this article and after reviewing it and the given references when I first wrote it, it seems that the references do not exist anymore, so there is no validation for any of the statements written in this article. Please speedy deletion. Thank you.
- Guntmar Wolff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Image cultivation for Guntmar Wolff. Topic not relevant for wikipedia High Contrast (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotion. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to have this page removed. I was looking for information on him and it is great that it is on Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.2.231.58 (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep, sufficient. His achievements are exceptional and he seems to be a particularly notable professional speaker and a successful author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.94.30 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) — 79.2.231.58 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete, most of the article is more an advertisement for him, mainly the sections "Career and ideas" and "Seminars". The fact that he has written two books, which none of them did appear on the english market, makes him not relevant to wikipedia. Note that the article about him has been deleted on the german wikipedia because of lack of relevance. The User:Motivationweb (whoever he or she is) tries to push Guntmar Wolff in the english and german wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote. This fact confirms the suspicion of promoting the entrepreneur Guntmar Wolff in Wikimedia projects. --132.199.211.24 (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sufficient. I am the author of the article. I am chief editor of a major financial magazine. This discussion is completely obsolete. Guntmar Wolff is a well known author, trainer and an expert with a high reputation in his field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motivationweb (talk • contribs) 10:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC) — Motivationweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. The motivations of the article creator, and whether the subject has been published in English, are irrelevant to the issue of deletion, as is my strong personal dislike of the whole field in which this subject works. The cited sources in Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung have significant enough coverage of the subject to pass English Wikipedia's notability criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete conducting seminars is not intrinsically notable, and that he somehow managed to get an otherwise reputable magazine to do his advertising for him doesn't make it any the more notable. DGG (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seminars are perhaps not inherently notable, but he also published at least one book with a notable publisher. You didn't comment on that. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And neither is conducting seminars intrinsically unnotable. Notability has to be decided for each individual case. Die Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung are two serious newspapers, not "an otherwise reputable magazine", and are the German equivalent of, say, The Washington Post and The New York Times, so I don't think that they can be discounted as reliable sources sufficient for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He meets the general notability guideline. If we're going to assume those are advertising, we can't rely on any publication anymore, because even though most newspaper articles aren't written with that aim in mind, bringing a person in the public eye will have an advertorial effect. That's not a valid reason to throw out references from highly reputable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--Sources establishing notability meets WP:Reliable.--J.Mundo (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient general information is provided here without an advertising focus. This article offers a basic biography of the author and informs the reader of his methodology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.82.148 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) — 98.27.82.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep and cleanup the tone. The tone is slightly like an advertisement, but not enough to warrant deletion per policy. Otherwise, most of the sources seem to be reliable enough to establish notability of the person. MuZemike 17:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clinical Transaction Repository EMR[edit]
- Clinical Transaction Repository EMR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability requirements, contains no references. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clinical_Transaction_Repository by the same editor MarkMoffitt (talk · contribs) which was deleted shortly after this one was created. Basie (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Basie (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have absolutely no idea what it is about, not referrable to anything. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ugh, what a horrible article, but the real issue is that this specific thing doesn't seem to be worth an encyclopedia article -- even if we pretended that the format of a specific (and uncommon) database record was WP:Notable. The important information about the concept is already at Electronic health record. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unfortunately I do (mostly) understand the article. However, the subject is a very specific and (from memory) theoretical way of managing electronic medical records and as such does not currently warrant its own article. If it were to be successfully implemented at multiple healthcare facilities using different software providers (and third-party evidence provided of such), then it might need a separate article. In the meantime it belongs in EHR. (By the way in my working life, EHR are not "uncommon" database records. Rather they are the majority.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I meant that the CTR approach was (at least) uncommon, not EHRs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pinocchio in popular culture[edit]
- Pinocchio in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a list of almost entirely unsourced trivia, listing nothing else than appearances and references to him in every medium with no connecting thread. Oddly, some of the maintenance tags predate the article, but there's no evidence of it ever having been deleted before. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A very notable fictional figure's appearance in a notable work in any media is worth an entry in a list or a combination article. Otherwise we'll be here all year arguing about just which appearances and figures meet some unspecified criteria, and soon deal with the people who think that all "in popular culture" sections or articles or lists are wrong, ultimately deriving from the reason that nothing in popular culture is possibly worth covering in an encyclopedia. This isn't actually a prediction, because that's the stage we were at a year or so ago, before common sense returned. Most of this needs documentation, but that's easy enough, though time consuming. That something appeared in a role in a film or whatever can be sourced from primary sources. DGG (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or move back to Pinocchio#Appearances_in_popular_culture (which explains the tag) It appears to be a somewhat premature spin off article. The entries could even be put on the relevant talk page until referenced. I oppose the idea that it is trivia. Pinnochio is a significant figure in western film and literature and it's effect on other works of fiction needs to be covered. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a clear need to discuss the obviously widespread influence this character has had in popular culture. Article should be fixed by editing, perhaps by trimming to only those references to pinocchio that have been mentioned in third party sources (e.g. appearance in Shrek as discussed here). See also this article discussing Pinocchio's appearances in stories beyond the original one. JulesH (talk)
- Keep. I don't see it as trivia, as trivia is a collection of random and unrelated facts. Pinocchio is a notable figure in film and literature with wide-ranging cultural equity, so this list is viable. Needs better sourcing, etc., though remember "verifiability not truth" is a mantra here, so if there's a reference in Family Guy and if this reference can be verified by viewing the episode in question, then that is fair game for an entertainment-related topic. Where a reference is open to interpretation, that's when third party sources are needed, or the item should be removed from the list. 23skidoo (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I won't cry if it's kept, but this is the run-of-the-mill i.p.c. article. In this case, it's about random sightings of Pinocchio. The only thing missing is the dirty joke about why Cinderella and Pinocchio were kicked out of the Magic Kingdom (the punchline, of course is "More lies! Ooohhh! Tell me lies!") Mandsford (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IPC articles are a useful and sensible spin-out of a significant article liek Pinocchio. Sourcing is perhaps a little dubious/primary, but no great sin, it's all verifiable, which is key. WilyD 14:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it needs work, but an article on a notable subject needing work is not one that should be deleted. SMSpivey (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - WP:SUMMARY and it is trivial to find sources. Article sucks but not reason to delete, and incorporation into parent article would be clutter.--Cerejota (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete I removed a lot of long-time unsourced claims and obvious cameo appearances without impact of either Pinocchio or the work he cameo-appeared in. What's now left is an attempt to make a half-decent article out of this, but it's still pretty bad, so I wouldn't mind deletion. – sgeureka t•c 15:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hooking[edit]
- Hooking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article contains to many flaws to provide remotely useful information. Such flaws include (but not limited too) factual inaccuracy, POV, contains spam and cites no refs or sources. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … all of which are cleanup issues. Jfire was quite right. The solution to all of the issues that you have with the article is for you to write content. Deletion is not cleanup. Writing the encyclopaedia, including fixing articles that you think to be bad, is not Somebody Else's Problem. {{sofixit}} applies. And that does not mean repeatedly nominating articles for deletion in place of using your edit button for actually editing content.
As to the article, there are plainly scads of sources available for writing about hooking in computer programming, from books on the Windows Driver Model to Gordon Letwin's Inside OS/2 (which has a discussion of hooking on pages 31–32 and 125). The problem with this article is the unwillingness of editors such as Promethean who see improvements that can be made to get out their edit buttons and actually make those improvements. It is not anything that requires an administrator tool, and it is fixable even by editors without accounts, let alone by editors with accounts. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup-- I'm not a programming expert and maybe I'm wrong , but various reliable sources are available to meet WP:N, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I said before and others have now echoed: cleanup does not require deletion, and needing cleanup is not a reason to delete an article. If you think it's factually inaccurate, POV, spammy, lacking sources, or otherwise incomplete, get in there and start working on the article. Jfire (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the view expressed by the people above. Fixing inaccuracies should be a priority since you seem to know something other people don't. Also, POV and spam can be removed through editing (either changes or removal) and apparently sources can be found. If you don't want to do the work yourself, dig up the most active contributor to the article, using the top left link on the history page or contact a relevant WikiProject for help. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Speaking as a programming expert is seems to be a reasonable stub article on the topic. Not sure what the fuss is about; the explanation is overly complex and perhaps focussed overly on the subject as it is applied in Microsoft's operating systems, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is unsalvageable. And having this article is, I think, better than having none. JulesH (talk) 10:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable encyclopedic topic with verifiable, third-party reliable sources. -Atmoz (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roach the Danish Supervillian[edit]
- Roach the Danish Supervillian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any information about this cartoon on the web, so I suspect it is a hoax. Even if it's not, it probably doesn't meet notability criteria. Ships at a Distance (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete zero sources on google web, books and news (even spelling villain correctly). I suppose it's possible this isn't a hoax and even that it might be notable under its Danish name, but the creator hasn't supplied that and it is apparently unverifiable under the current title.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since Fuhgettaboutit speaks true, as far as I can discern. For the record, there also is no mention anywhere of a Roach the Dutch supervillain. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in the article can be verified. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. MBisanz talk 01:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged Ya'alon quotation[edit]
- Alleged Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The "Alleged Ya'alon quotation" (the term is of course a Wikipedian-invented neologism) has been the subject of exactly two articles, both of which were published in Internet-only sources of arguable reliability. The quotation has been used by a leading scholar of Palestinian nationalism, writing in the world's leading newspaper. It has been used twice by a Senior Fellow of one of the world's leading think tanks, writing in two other leading publications. (He happens to be the former head of the American Jewish Congress.)
So if Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and sourcing were actually operating here, then the article would have to be called "Ya'alon quotation," and it would begin something like, "The Ya'alon quotation was an utterance of Israeli defence minister Moshe Ya'alon in 2002, although two neoconservative American Jewish sources dispute this..." This would of course be a terrible article, but that's my point. The only way to make "Alleged Ya'alon quotation" into a notable topic is to rely on partisan ephemera over real sources, which have never covered it non-trivially. The article is not intended to enlighten anyone, but rather to appear in Google results as an "independent" source bolstering those already available. We do not need any more of this metastatizing series of agitprop pieces (the articles linked in "see also" should give an idea of what I mean.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP I hope that editors will read the articles, and the similar articles on Wikipedia listed under "See also." There are several, well-established parallel articles, such as Alleged Ouze Merham interview of Ariel Sharon . The bogus Ya'alon quotation appears in hundreds of newspapers. So do quotations from the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" appear in University syllabi and major newspapers in many countries despite the fact that ist is as fake as this quote is. What Eleland ought to do is demonstrate that Ya'alon said this. Or accept that Palestinian scholars like Rashid Khalidi can make a mistake. Mistakes happen. This one is being used as nasty propaganda. Ya'alon is entitled to redress.Historicist (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Historicist (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. One thing I want to point out. We do not have an article Alleged Nasrallah suicide bombing quotation, even though it is well established that an extremely widely publicized "quotation" of this Muslim militant leader (far more publicized than this quote,) which led to my own country banning charities associated with his political party, is unsubstantiated and probably fraudulent. We do not have an article Alleged Nasrallah going after Jews quotation, even though it is likely that this quotation, again more widely circulated then the Ya'alon quote, is a fabrication. I don't think that we should have such articles. But frankly, if Wikipedian consensus is against me on this point, I will have to serously consider an article creation spree of this sort. I might throw in Alleged massacre of worshippers in Kiryat Arba while I'm at it - outright, consciously deceiful atrocity propaganda - or Alleged Khalil Sulieman attack - that's a good one, the IDF machine-gunned a Palestinian ambulance and killed its driver, claimed it was screaming towards them in a suicide bomb attack, only to later admit quetly that no, the only thing in that ambulance that exploded was a medical oxygen supply. Again, I don't think these kind of articles, which go out of their way to spotlight and promote bits of tragic Mideast ephemera, are appropriate. But I think it would be even less appropriate to leave the field to one side only. <eleland/talkedits> 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I googled the fake Nasrallah quote. I got 7 hits. I googled the fake Ya'alon quote. 748 hits. Wikipedia has lots of pages on similar frauds. It is a useful function for us to perform.Historicist (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article claims that the "alleged Ya’alon quotation" is "widely cited" but it has zero hits in Google News, Books, and Scholar. ( WP:OR and WP:R) --J.Mundo (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is partially an artifact of the article naming. You will find hits in all three, I believe, for something like 'ya-alon defeated-people,' if you try that. <eleland/talkedits> 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you google the quote you will find hundreds of uses, in major newspapers and books. One of the uses of this kind of article is this: When an innocent party finds the quote and googles it, s/he can find reliable information about its validity. This saves people form making fools of themselves in print. For example, since the Wikipedia article on the fake Ouze Merham quotation, journalists have stopped printing the fake quote. although it does still appear on blogs.Historicist (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USEFUL. We do not have a responsibility towards dumb journos who don't heed our warnings not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source. However, how do you know we played such a pivotal role? We should be flattered, but I am not sure I would adscribe such importance to us. --Cerejota (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you google the quote you will find hundreds of uses, in major newspapers and books. One of the uses of this kind of article is this: When an innocent party finds the quote and googles it, s/he can find reliable information about its validity. This saves people form making fools of themselves in print. For example, since the Wikipedia article on the fake Ouze Merham quotation, journalists have stopped printing the fake quote. although it does still appear on blogs.Historicist (talk) 12:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is partially an artifact of the article naming. You will find hits in all three, I believe, for something like 'ya-alon defeated-people,' if you try that. <eleland/talkedits> 03:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge There is no appropriate reason for this sort of emphasis on individual sentences. The material should be discussed briefly in the article for Moshe Ya'alon, and even a redirect is not NPOV, s it is merely the highlighting of one side of a political issue. DGG (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pace DGG this is not a matter of opinion. Ya'alon either did or did not say this. This is a question of fact, not opinion.Historicist (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not judge matters of fact. it reports what people say about them. it is not our responsibility to evaluate the evidence for what he did say, or for wht he did mean. This is the basic principle of editing anything controversial: we report, and let the reader judge. . However, the main article Moshe Ya'alon uses the heading Fake Ya’alon quotation, which is an unacceptable POV judgement. Interestingly, neither article gives a link to the actual interview. It is at [44]--in English. It is not clear to me whether the original interview was in Hebrew--if so, there needs to be a link to that also. Reading the English, it says "I defined it from the beginning of the confrontation: the very deep internalization by the Palestinians that terrorism and violence will not defeat us, will not make us fold. ... If that [lesson] is not burned into the Palestinian and Arab consciousness, there will be no end to their demands of us." if the words are accurately reported there, it would appear to me that neither side reported accurately. The NYT op-ed has a much more aggressive paraphrase than the Haaretz article indicates--the Commentary article does give the quotation correctly, but then interprets it in a way that seems to me at least equally at odds with the actual statement. The Wikipedia section in the Ya'alon article reports the Commentary view as if it were undoubted, and this is also in the separate article, which gives it as "terrorism will not make Israelis into a defeated people." Camera gives what I consider an even great distortion. However we do it, in one article or two, we must do it correctly, with a direct quotation of what he said., and a report of the different interpretations. Then the reader can judge. The present article, and the section in the Ya'alon article, each judge for the reader, and can therefore both best be described as propaganda. That neither of them even link to the actual quotation, was the hint to me that they might be so inaccurate that it would be worth finding the actual text. Now, others may judge that one or the other version is the actual meaning of what he said, and that I am being over-critical. That's fine. But the actual interview must be cited and quoted. DGG (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pace DGG this is not a matter of opinion. Ya'alon either did or did not say this. This is a question of fact, not opinion.Historicist (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on nominators rationale A phrase in plain English is not a neologism, and hence WP:NEO should not apply here. Other than that, no real opinion on this article. JulesH (talk) 11:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Moshe Ya'alon as a separate section. This way it can easily be linked/redirected to from other articles, including in 'See also'. The article probably can't stand on its own, but it's well-sourced and there's absolutely no reason to entirely delete well-sourced information. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While you convinced me to merge, I disagree that there's absolutely no reason to entirely delete well-sourced information. There are many reasons to do so: when the information doesn't verify is on the top of the list. Verifiability, not truth is as important a core principle or even more important than reliable sources. Second on the list is bias, an important part of WP:NPOV: we must give due weight to arguments, even if this means deprecating sourcing (just because one side of a dispute is more vocal or has better media, we shouldn't give them undue weight). And another reason, is notability: is this worth writing for in an encyclopedia?. For example, see this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Croft. The article was very well sourced, from reliable and notable media, but the subject was not deemed worth of encyclopedic treatment. Sourcing isn't everything, and de-COATRACKing as you suggested is something that many articles around here could use.--Cerejota (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete DGG put it well. This feels a little soapy to me. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor is it a battleground. And it's not our job to save "people form making fools of themselves in print." (The threat to shower Wikipedia with inappropriate articles is just plain pointy.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, let me walk that one back, I really don't intend to go creating a bunch of counterattack articles. Although a bio of Khalil Suleiman would be appropriate, as would an article on the Kiryat Arba attack (normal, neutral articles, though.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty obviously not notable by WP standards, material is far too weak to carry a whole page. I mean are we going to have a page here for every complaint or allegation of discrepancy or media error raised on the (highly partisan, as it happens) CAMERA website, or for every alleged misquote in the world ever? As noted, WP:POINT and WP:NPOV issues as well, quite apart from the more fundamental WP:NN problem. --Nickhh (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a quotation guidebook. Not even N enough to put in article. A quote has to be extremely significant if an bio article should carry it. --Shuki (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAnd if possible all the other well sourced WP:COATRACK quotation articles in the whole sorry mess that are the I-P and A-I conflict articles. Just because something is sourced, it doesn't mean it deserves an article on its own, or even as content in an article. We are an encyclopedia, not a collection of blog-cruft. --Cerejota (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, merge content and delete WP:OR name that has no chance of being searched for into
Moshe Ya'alon as a separate section. Ynhockey's argument is convincing.I shot from the hip. I apologize. --Cerejota (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, Nudve is even more convincing. Moshe Ya'alon can seealso/wikilink to CAMERA if needed.--Cerejota (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, merge content and delete WP:OR name that has no chance of being searched for into
- Merge into Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. It seems that CAMERA's disputation is this quotation's main claim to notability. The CAMERA article already has a long section dedicated to their commentary. Merging it into Moshe Ya'alon is also an option, but I think it would result in undue weight. -- Nudve (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a general feeling that this material beongs on Wikipedia.... on some page or other. I had it posted on Moshe Ya'alon. User:Eleland who proposed this RFD, appears to be atempting to insure that it appears nowhere. He has removed the material three times from Moshe Ya'alon's page. I am happy to merge it back onthe the Ya'alon page. I do, however, feel the Ya'alon is entitled to have thiw well-sourced debunking of a widely oublished bogus statement made somewhere.Historicist (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Ya'alon's page. The material is well-sourced and this widely cited false quotation is non-trivial.76.169.197.225 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll allow someone more experienced with the subject handle any renaming/expansion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exinct[edit]
- Exinct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I believe this fails notability requirements. Although there are three references, each is by the same authors. I have had no luck establishing any other reference, though I cannot claim any expertise in the field. Furthermore, the account exinct (talk · contribs) seems to have been made to promote the work of these authors (see also In_vivo_selection_of_an_entire_exon and 3'-Cluster. Basie (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect seems to be self-aggrandizement but a rd to SMN2 (or a dab asking if Extinct was actually intended) is reasonable; SMN2 appears notable despite its current redlinked status. JJL (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment It appears the term has been used by other researchers as well. [45][46] -Atmoz (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to the gene SMN2 and expand. Unless I'm missing something, there seems no reason why not to have an article on the gene which is redlinked from Chromosome 5 (human) (SMN1 already exists), and this research is relevant and sourced to reputable publications. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monkey Spunky[edit]
- Monkey Spunky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails the 12 guidelines listed in WP:BAND; they don't have any major albums, no charting singles, no notable members, no major awards, etc. Tavix (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google shows up zilch! So agree that it fails all of WP:BAND, I would go so far as to claim it is a Hoax. Archivey (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion to merge should take place at the talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fahrenheit (Third Album)[edit]
- Fahrenheit (Third Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, no content other than track listing. WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article fails to establish notability WP:MUSIC.JamesBurns (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I boldly moved the article to Love You More and More which appears to be the actual title - looks like someone just misnamed it. And the release date is stated as 2 January, which unless I'm going crazy has already passed. So WP:HAMMER - can't touch this. :-) So keep and improve as an album by a notable artist. the wub "?!" 16:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the album is correct and as you can see from the track list that they have a similar song with the same title. The band has released this album as January 2nd. The information can be found on the band's official website at [47]. It qualifies under WP:MUSIC because as stated on the WP:MUSIC page - Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories - is approved. (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or redirectI probably should have cited WP:MUSIC instead of CRYSTAL. This article doesn't contain enough information to warrant a separate article and should be merged or redirected until more information is available. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:MUSIC#Albums, albums with little more than a track listing blah blah blah.....etc. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article will fill out after some time as this is still a NEW album and notable things like chart-placing of certain songs will soon be available. Since their 2 other albums have their own pages, I think it's silly to delete this just because it's currently new and doesn't have as much notable information. DanielTAR (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect: article not sufficient in notability to warrant a seperate entry. JamesBurns (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dense (film)[edit]
- Dense (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability. JamesBurns (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Vanessa A. Williams. There is some coverage available ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]). Unfortunately all of these (except last) require registration, although the Google search confirms they mention the film. All of this is still not sufficient to fulfill WP:NF. But considering it was a credited work by notable person, a redirect would be beneficial. LeaveSleaves 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as I have now expanded and sourced the article per film MOS. Notability is currently thin, but I think it just nudges to the plus side of WP:NF. I have tagged to article for WP:RESCUE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mr. Schmidt or Redirect per Leave Sleaves. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jesus Christ, you "notability" freaks can be so stupid. This is a Showtime movie, for God's sake.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only a Showtime made for TV movie, but Vanessa Williams' debut as a writer/director. The "notability freaks" were only opining about the article that first came to AfD. It has been expanded and sourced since then and a closing admin will note that it has been markedly improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For a film a to justify notability it has to be widely released OR needs to have non-trivial coverage thorough secondary sources that does not include simply information about screenings OR significant critical reception. Just because a film is produced by a major network is not a valid reason for inclusion. Notability is not inherited. But as a work of a known person, the film does warrant mention is that person's article. Hence my suggestion for a redirect. LeaveSleaves 04:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the sources need not be exclusive... just simply "more than a trivial". I can well believe that when it was first released as her directorial debut, it got lots of coverage... and since notability is not temporary I will be searching in that direction. If I cannot find such, a merge and redirect will serve. No need to jump onto a delete or merge too soon as Wiki does not have a deadline. And because of her notability, any such article will definitely mention her. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's one: a less-than-trivial article from unityfirst.com: "Vanessa Williams to screen her Directorial debut 'Dense' at the Martha's Vineyard African American Film Festival, August 12-15". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this non-trivial? The source talks more about the person than the film. There is no description of the film or its production, nor is there any critical comment. I'm sorry but I don't see how this meets any of the required notability requirements of a film. LeaveSleaves 05:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a real shame that her own notability has overshadowed coverage of her directorial debut. It's a shame that the film had not been written and directed by someone otherwise non-notable. It's shame that coverage of her film would by the nature of her own notability, include informations about her not directly related to the film. It's a shame that the film and fimmaker cannot be seperated. Its unrealistic to expect that sources about the film to NOT include her. In my search I also found an archive of the February 25 2005 issue of The Metro Herald, Page 16, where there is another "mention"... of her particpation in the commenoration of Black History Month where "Dense" was screened and Vanessa WIlliams spoke about her film. Again... it is an absolute pity the article about the film cannot be seperate from the filmmaker. A pity too.... that she can now do nothing individually creative and have it accepted as an act apart from her own notability. If she discovered the cure for cancer, you can just bet that any article about the cure would itself include volumes about the person who made the discovery. Would that make the discovery less notable? However, the question is moot. I give up.... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that the news item shouldn't include her. I'm asking for sources that talk at least something about the film instead of her other endeavors. Is that too much to ask? LeaveSleaves 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, because of her incredble notability, yes. This may qualify as one of those situations spoken of at the head of every guideline... "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." That caveat is included on those pages for a reason. This might be just that "exception". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by LeaveSleeves and Schmidt Tavix (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Films shown by the major networks have sufficient distribution to be notable. DGG (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also, we generally cover the works of notable people if something can be said about them. Since Vanessa Williams is an award winning person and this is her directorial debut, it's an important part of her body of work and thus notable enough for inclusion (the sources make it verifiable, while the facts about the director make it notable. the whole general notability criterion only comes into play when other criteria cannot be met). - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Birmingham Rail Stations[edit]
- Birmingham Rail Stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A WP:FORK of other station articles. Not much point in the article as this is not a station group (e.g. London station group). Also, not a single source. Created in good faith however. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 21:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per reasons in nomination. Un-necessary, unsourced, forked article... in good faith. --Jza84 | Talk 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what a "station group" is, but I think an article that lists and provides brief details of the railway stations in a major city is worth having. Sources can clearly be added to this article, which is essentially a brief summary of the contents of the sourced articles Birmingham New Street station, Birmingham Snow Hill station and Birmingham Moor Street station. Should be expanded to cover the stations outside of the city centre also (e.g. Tyseley railway station). JulesH (talk) 08:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is already done in List of stations in the West Midlands, another article which shows just how this one has no real use. ┌Joshii┐└chat┘ 08:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. In that case, it may be best to merge to List of stations in the West Midlands. Makes more sense than deleting this plausible search term. JulesH (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That last list looks great, but it doesn't show how the stations are interconnected, which this article does. If a free map of the routes can be put in the other article, I might be convinced to delete, but right how the fact it's got routes means it's got additional info that shouldn't be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 09:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I follow. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought. This article is effectively a synthesis, not a stand along topic. Sure it's got verifiable content, but just seems to be a list of stations in Birmingham and how they're connected. Not seen anything like it on WP. --Jza84 | Talk 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This might work better in another format like Railroad terminals of Chicago. --NE2 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content is covered better in the individual articles on each station. It might be converted to a dab page referring to the articles Birmingham New Street station, Birmingham Snow Hill station and Birmingham Moor Street station, but if so it should become "Railway Stations in central Birmingham" to discourage the addition of suburban stations. I am doubtful of the value of including articles on the frequency of services, as these may change with time tables, which change at frequent intervals. IN so far as this duplicates the individual station articles, it is highly undesirable to have this one. It there is a change and one or the other is not updated, WP will be contrdicting itself. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is a valuable article bringing information together like the chicargo one. I know people who have said its good. Newguernsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newguernsey (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to disambiguation page. Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep or merge There was no effort to attempt to preserve this information, in violation of the foundation policy WP:PRESERVE. The editor is a new editor, with only 15 edits. Instead of working with this editor, and explaining to this editor why this article may not meet wikipedia guidelines, the delete editors have instead said with our actions: your contributions are worthless.
Is it any wonder that the media unanimously despises our deletion system? The media calls wikipedians "bullies", "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors" involved in the "midnight door-knock and the book bonfire". travb (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - there's a need for articles covering topics at a variety of depths (We don't delete apes just because we have humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and so forth). POVFORK charge seems unsupported (what other article is covering rail stations in birmingham from a different POV?) New article, that it's so far poorly sourced is not a big deal, since it's all easily verifiable (the real criterion). WilyD 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - actually it is a rather useful article tying together the three stations. Of course it needs proper sourcing and quite a bit of editorial work. However, that is a separate matter from this deletion discussion and I agree with the suggestion above that what would be desirable would be for someone knowledgeable on the subject to work with the creator to improve the page. Smile a While (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a very useful article for people living in birmingham, it is also useful for train enthusiasts(i am not a train enthusiast, the writer is, i know him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IXmeXI (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The V (band)[edit]
- The V (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm brazilian and I've never heard of this band. I was looking for some information about it, but I couldn't find anything. Even the links are not working. Seems to be notable, except one thing: There are actually no sources (Even if there were they should be independent and reliable). So I can't tell if the band exists and even if it exists I can't tell if it's notable per WP:MUSIC. One of the searches I used: [53] but all I found was nothing. Descíclope (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: article fails to establish notability. WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A significant part of the band's carreer appears to be before the net was very active. Could someone Brazilian have a stab at dead-tree sources? - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:07, 9 January 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) 00:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. On its own merits, this discussion is no consensus leaning towards a keep, and appears to be header further in that direction. lifebaka++ 03:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nordine_Zouareg[edit]
- Nordine_Zouareg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) –
I wasn't completely sure about this one, but it looks like the vanity/publicity page for a NN bodybuilder/coach. The biggest problem is in the sourcing-- claims are made that this guy won Mr. France, Mr. Universe, etc., but these all link back to a web site that happens to contain some rankings-- and only one is even vaguely close to the claim (the "Mr. Universe" claim does connect to a winning rank in the 1986 W.A.B.B.A. World Championship). It would be an obvious delete, except I was wondering about the importance of a positive review of his book in Publisher's Weekly. Jlg4104 (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I cannot find any confirmation that he won those titles--at least none in sources that I trust. If someone knows this subject matter better I would gladly be shown the evidence. That Musclememory site, that's not so authoritative for me. As for the review, to pass muster on the book would require a bit more than a Publisher's Weekly review: do publishers pay for these positive reviews? Drmies (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I spent a bunch of time cleaning up and trying to rescue this article back in the middle of last year. At the time I started it was a complete pov vanity piece. By the time I hacked out everything inappropriate, the remainder was contradictory hence my comments on the talk page. It was me that tagged it for the issues that have not since been resolved. There is too much conflicting info without accurate sourcing for it to exist as a WP:BLP. On a side note, where is the original AfD discussion if this is the 2nd nom? I can't locate it. Mfield (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment re "2nd" nomination." Hmm, I think I did everything right, and at some point I put "afdx" in a template and do not recall explicitly trying to make it a second nom. So I guess I thought the 2nd nom designation was automated. As you may guess, this is somewhat new to me. I removed the 2nd nom box, so at least it no longer "looks" like a 2nd. I suspect the appearance of two more prior AfDs can bias results. A more experienced person could help, maybe? It sure deserves at least a first nomination, at least! Thanks. Jlg4104 (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--His book "Mind over body" has been reviewed by Monster and Critics, Entrepreneur.com and Publisher Weekly. --Jmundo (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Jmundo's input. And to answer Drmies' question: no, publishers don't pay to be in Publishers Weekly -- that's actually a prestigious trade magazine for the U.S. book industry. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishers Weekly (note lack of punctuation) is certainly a prestigious trade magazine, but at 7,000 reviews a year, being reviewed there is hardly a guarantee of notability. Bongomatic 09:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would respectfully disagree on that. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:13, 13 January 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) 00:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Inadequate notability as an author--a short review in PW of one book is not sufficient for notability and the other claimed reviews are not significant or reliable.. Notability would have to be as a bodybuilder, if that is actually considered a sport. I think there is no particular standard for who counts as a professional, so i would want to see evidence that the competitions he won are considered notable. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My response above has been challenged a number of times on my talk page, but examining the further discussion, I continue to see no evidence that I consider reliable for the prizes. But I'm not exactly an expert in this subject. I do however know that one can claim whatever one cares to on a book jacket, and uncritical media sources copy it. Even news sources if based entirely on such material or press releases should be discounted. The prior bios of authors of books is not a field in which I consider most newspapers at all reliable. DGG (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentHe won the 1986 World Championships for the WABBA, among other titles. I assume you are not familiar with bodybuilding (it is a niche sport, admittedly). In that sport, not unlike boxing, has several different leagues. Arnold Schwarzenegger, arguably the most famous bodybuilder, was the champion in the IFBB (where Mr. Zouareg participated towards the end of his sports career). The sport has been around, in its current state, since the end of World War II -- the notion it is not well-organised is not supported in the real world (nearly every country has at least one bodybuilding league -- as an example, check out the article Afghan Muscles to learn about about both the Afghanistan and pan-Asian bodybuilding competitions). And don't rely on Wikipedia for bodybuilding information -- I am part of WikiProject Bodybuilding and it is probably the flabbiest place on the project (the articles need a major overhaul). As for Mr. Zouareg authoring a single book -- yes, and it was published and distributed by a major publishing company. "Life coach" is a euphemism for personal trainer -- nothing unusual about that (it helps sell books, too). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, just what prize did he win exactly? I do not see him listed for Universe Championships, which seems to be the main one, or for [[World Amateur Bodybuilding Championships], nor do I find him on their web pages. I remain skeptical of how well this sport is organized. I ask for considerably more than these reviews for notability for the author of a single book. I see it is listed in worldCat as present in 258 libraries, but again, its only a single book. There are some claimed professions where I am very skeptical about notability, and "life coach" is one of them. for notabiity in that profession, I think it wise to require multiple mainstream sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Entrepreneur.com is the online site for Entrepreneur Magazine, which is a rather prominent U.S. business magazine. Monsters and Critics is a highly regarded U.S. popular culture site. Bodybuilding is considered a sport and it has very distinctive requirements regarding who can advance to the professional rankings. And getting a book reviewed in Publishers Weekly is no mean feat! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG; on the information presented, he does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep in addition to the refences above, Zouareg has been in the Arizona Daily Star and eMaxHealth.com[54] and in 5 books.[55] Zouareg is a former Mr. Universe for gods sake.[56][57][58][59] Publishers Weekly#Book reviews has been printing for the past 136 years, and targets not the pulbic, but publishers, librarians, booksellers and literary agents.
- When there are 172,000 books published in the US alone a year, being one of the 7,000 is pretty prestigious. travb (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the book refs are in as much dispute as the complete lack of third party, non self published refs about his body building career. If he won all these titles, particularly Mr Universe in 1986 as claimed in the article, why is he not listedin World_Amateur_Bodybuilding_Championships or the ref that supports that article. I am not saying for one moment that he did not win the title of Mr Universe somewhere, its just odd that there are no refs to support it, nor have there been since this article was flagged ages ago and this really needs clarifying as this is a WP:BLP. Mfield (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage (talk)
- Well, Googling WABBA Mr Universe gets zero results, except for to mention that the IFBB was renamed to WABBA, something that appears to have happened in 1976, well before he supposedly won so he should be in that one. All other Mr Universe results seem to come up as NABBA, that would be Universe_Championships which he also isn't listed in. Why does [60] this search produce not one single listing from an official site of any sort? Mfield (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try putting quotation marks around Mr. Z's name when you do a Google search, like this: [61]. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you see the four citations? Three books and a magazine article?
- WP:INTROTODELETE states that "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." We are now talking about some content issues, which can be resolved with cleaning up the article. I suggest the nominator close the AfD.
- travb (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer As stated earlier -- he won a WABBA title. The article in question is about the IFBB competition. That's a different bodybuilding league. Ecoleetage (talk)
- Keep per WP:BIO as books verify that he won the Mr. Universe competition, which is indeed a notable title, and yes, bodybuilding is considered a sport. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is precisely one of my problems with them. First, I simply don't put that much stock in that type of publication (which aren't known, let's face it, for their body-building expertise) to do that kind of verification. Note also that those books have him as "a two-time Mr. Universe bodybuilding champion"--that's not what the WP article claims, or even the MuscleMemory site. Then, the author of the first title Dr. Dharma Singh Khalsa states Zouareg is his "own personal trainer," and Khalsa is also the author of the second, where he says Zouareg is his "good friend." The third book has the exact same phrase, "my good friend and two-time Mr. Universe winner"--so really, I don't put that much stock in any of these books in that regard, given what looks like collusion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These three books call him a a Two-Time Mr. Universe winner. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only title that third party refs support is 1986 WABBA "Overall Winner". The "Mr Universe" (and "Mr. France, Mr. Europe, Mr. World") claim is entirely supported by his own books and website or sites affiliated to him. That's the odd part. These would seem to be big titles that would merit some kind of mention by someone else. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are nevertheless published books that verify that claim and that are also found on amazon.com. If something is covered in multiple published books, it is worthy of inclusion in some manner or other. Do magazines like Flex or Muscle & Fitness have online archives, because if they do, that's where we should also look. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are hardly books on bodybuilding! (To put it another way, I have little faith in them.) Ecoleetage's Google for the WABBA title gives references that I don't put much stock in, and despite travb's derogatory comment on Bongomatic's remark, I'm personally with Bongo on this one. A short paragraph in a trade journal doesn't cut it for me. Call me a self-appointed deletionist if you will, but if one wants to keep everything, referenced or not, it's almost disingenuous to look for references. I'll shed no tears if this article is kept, and MQS (always good at finding a reference for an obscure celebrity! good work!) may tip the scale for some of you--that's fine. Drmies (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing I found which cannot be included in the article, is a soloflex blog on the official Soloflex webpage, which also mentions his Mr. Universe title. travb (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact still remains that the subject of this article is covered in multiple published books. Whether these books are ideal or not doesn't chance the fact that multiple books and as indicated elsewhere other publications have covered this man in some manner or other. References in multiple non-self-published books meets our notability criteria. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exacty - only the NABBA competition claims the title Mr Universe, and he never competed in that. It is very odd that the only sources that use the term are his own book, or reviews of his own book or are written by his "close friends". If that term was ever used by the WABBA, there would be a mention of it somewhere else. Mfield (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just found a nice article about him in the Tucson Weekly and added its sourcing to the article. The article itself is still a little spammy, but that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator Many new sources have just been added to the article, resolving many of the issues the nominator originally brought up.travb (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This now looks like quite a good article. Johnfos (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per travb - article is now sourced and reads well. If I wasn't on a wikibreak I'd probably have closed this accordingly myself Glen 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't buy the notability argument yet. The "source" on Google books is really an author saying that Zouareg is a two-time Mr. Universe. But there's no independent evidence that Zouareg ever was. It could quite easily be a ruse, which to me seems more consistent with the self-promotional nature of the piece (which included a list of dubious links). I don't believe that every "source" is of equal value, and in this case, I still don't see notability. As the nominator, I have been asked (or at least I think it was suggested to me) to withdraw the nomination, as if the discusson has achieved consensus around "keep." Well, I don't see it. And, if an admin believes I'm not right, I'm willing to be corrected-- but I will leave it to a closing admin to do the close. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm just following the notability guidelines more strictly than the keepers. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which he meets: of the millions? of body-builders a fraction appear on the cover of magazines, plus his writings are reviewed in multiple publications, and cited in a couple of other books. We don't need more than that to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if you're an inclusionist. I am neither an inclusionist nor a deletionist. I came across the page and checked into the references. I found what was there to be wanting, that is, so I did some further research and came up with very little to justify notability. People here have worked diligantly, I readily admit, to improve the sourcing, but I still have doubts. I am becoming convinced that this is more a philosophical debate than an AfD discussion. In any event I may withdraw the nomination shortly so as not to belabor the issue. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which he meets: of the millions? of body-builders a fraction appear on the cover of magazines, plus his writings are reviewed in multiple publications, and cited in a couple of other books. We don't need more than that to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I'm just following the notability guidelines more strictly than the keepers. Jlg4104 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He even made the cover of a magazine. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 00:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am on the phone with Nordine Zouareg, we are trying to find proof of him being Mr. Universe. Zouareg was on the cover of a magazine. In French is says Chapion Du Mone (spelling), champion of the world.[62][63] He also won Mr. Universe in Guadalupe in 1988. Another magazine with him on the cover.[64][65] He brought up a good point, this was 20 years ago, so it is hard to find coverage. travb (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOMINATION WITHDRAWN - ok, here's what I wrote to travb, with whom I've been having a useful discussion: "I think inclusionism has its merits. I certainly do not hang out in AfD so I can tear things down. To me, AfD represents the spirit of discussion and negotiation that goes into the creation of a high-quality articles. Plus, I enjoy doing the research that can result in a "keep" whenever possible. Moreover, I have done my best-- even though I am new-- to RTFM and continue to do so. So I hope you understand that my M.O. is to help make this wonderful thing called Wikipedia even better. This whole bodybuilder case strikes me as a really important kind of "test case" for the development of WP's whole raison d'etre in light of its users. That's partly why I was primed to respond negatively to any call to close it-- the discussion itself helps to clarify not only the case at hand, but also related concepts such as verifiability and notability." That said, I am worried that what's happened here is that an inclusionist wind blew through the debate and skewed the outcome a bit. But since I cannot be 100% objective at this point, and since at least some progress has been made on the notability and verifiability fronts, I am respectfully, and in good faith, withdrawing the nomination. Jlg4104 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Itamar Danziger[edit]
- Itamar Danziger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Aritcle fails guidelines for notability of musicians, and lacks any real 3th party sources. The closest thing to a reference is s Jerusalem Post article which is about his immigration to Israel. That column is about everyday normal people who immigrate - not people who are notable for any other reason. The article make little claim to notability and says that he does not work full time as a musician. Jon513 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that there is a redirect Itamar danziger with nontrival history. Jon513 (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no significant 3rd party verfication. JamesBurns (talk) 05:37, 10 January 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) 00:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. Notinh in google books and only the one human interest story in google news. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Gears in Dragon Booster[edit]
- List of Gears in Dragon Booster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't know what this is, but I don't think it has any place in an encylopedia.
- Hello? It seems to be some kind of outfit in the TV series, but even the parent article doesn't explain what they are. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 22:47, 11 January 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) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-encyclopedic list of trivia which is not covered by reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with and redirect to Dragon Booster The main article simply links to this. Why not move to the main article instead? SYCTHOStalk 01:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced original research, and that's before I even look at the list of possibilities at WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Listcruft, WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galena (singer)[edit]
- Galena (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I tried to speedy it, but was denied due to her apparent charting status. However, there are no sources for even her existence. Looking for Galena in Korean Google (갈래나 and any other versions) revealed no hits, looking for "Galena" and her apparent singles only yielded Wiki mirrors, and just looking for Galena showed a European singer (and the rock). So at best, her notability is questionable, and at worst, it's a hoax. (If a legitimate source can be found, please add it to the page, and I'll withdraw my nomination.) SKS2K6 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if she exists, she's not really notable enough. Hermione1980 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone with more deletion sorting experience add this to a Korean-related list? - Mgm|(talk) 09:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 10 January 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) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As ever, discussion on whether to merge or redirect the article somewhere can be taken up on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tiles of the Hold[edit]
- Tiles of the Hold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List was previously deleted as nonnotable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold in September 2008. As this list had a little more (in-universe) information than the AfDed list, I chose not to speedy it as WP:CSD#G4 and prodded it instead. Prod-tag was removed with some explanation at the article's talkpage (Talk:Tiles of the Hold), but I am (still) not convinced that his list should be included in wikipedia (nothing significant found on Google Books/Scholar/News), so here we are again. – sgeureka t•c 11:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This article has been updated, and although, at present, it does not meet notability guidelines there are at least two forthcoming novels that will use this information. Prior to them, two novels have used this information in an introductory note and practical note. Also, a reason for the lack notability in 'Google' hits is because of the complexity of the series and only a few sites have gone and done work on it. Google Scholar rarely has fiction elements on it. Google News would not have anything to do with elements of a book, unless there is a book review in a magazine, which usually is not detailed enough to give away plot. No information is original research based on primary source material. It is directly from the book although formatted for readability and put into context. This information will be useful in the future. There is no reason to delete it. Thank you, Krmarshall (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Note: Krmarshall is the article re-creator.) Articles that were recently deleted through consensus should not be recreated unless the concerns of the previous AfD no longer apply (which is not the case here), or unless WP:DRV overrules the AfD (also not the case). Original research was not noted as a reason for deletion here. If consensus in this AfD determines that this list should be kept, then that's also fine. – sgeureka t•c 00:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If there are forthcoming novels that will make this notable, then when the novels have been published and there is some comment on them, it should be possible to write an article. DGG (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) I have analyzed this further, below. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, treelo radda 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep or userfy, editor is obviously making a good faith effort to improve the article. travb (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin, please check the page history for the merits of this claim. – sgeureka t•c 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The new editor removed the AfD tag[66] and Sgeureka replaced it. I did this the first time my article was put up for deletion too. The new editor had a mere 365 edits before they created the page.
- Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept. travb (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete How can you have a "Keep" argument that says the subject is not notable? No reliable third party sources address the subject. The only source is from the book itself. There is no policy or guideline basis for a keep argument. The good faith of the editor not withstanding. As the source for this is the book itself, this is WP:OR at best. There is no point in userfying this. The quality of the keep arguments here astounds me. Dlohcierekim 03:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Add delete per arguments presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiles of the Hold. As this is a mere recreation of material deleted after that discussion, as there is no improvement and no sourcing, as as there is no basis for keep arguments, Speedy Deletion as recreated material is certainly appropriate. Dlohcierekim 03:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Merge as I am about to suggest. I've been asked to reconsider. I think major plot elements in fiction are always notable if the fiction is notable enough. I think these are not major plot elements, but minor ones, just part of the background machinery, and would only be notable if the fiction were exceptionally notable. I see no evidence of anything more. But I do not know the series, so I may well be wrong; I am judging only by the material in the Wikipedia articles, which do not seem of great clarity. If I am wrong, there should be discussions of the books in which these are referred to , and I do not see this. I have my doubts about Deck of the Dragons, but at least this seems to apply to the entire series. This seems to apply to one part of the fictional universe only. Perhaps then they two articles should be merged, unde some such title as Divination in The Malazan Book of the Fallen, with a possible redirect from this title. Otherwise, it seems unduely specialized. As usual, I don;t really think afd is the best place for such discussions. DGG (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep On the one hand it's a bit in universesque, on the other hand it's a worthile listing that's relevant to a successful novel. I lean towards including it somehow in a tightened format or even merged into parent article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no reliable sources sufficient to establish notability for this thoroughly unencyclopedic list about the minute details of a fantasy series.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still Keep:
- I agree with Inclusionist:
- Since we are questioning good faith now, I think the question is whether this nomination was in good faith. The policy WP:PRESERVE states that "whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information, instead of removing" WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:POTENTIAL state that deletion of an article should be a last resort. In this case, deletion was the first resort. The article should be userfied or kept.
- What harm is there to keeping this article alive. I have added to it, again. And believe there is still more to add. I have a busy life outside of this, so it takes some time to create a full article. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are articles.Krmarshall (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Magic in the Malazan Book of the Fallen (probably along with every other article in the Magic section of Template:MBF), a description of these would obviously be relevant to the main subject but the main body of this article is unnecessary plot detail which does not contribute to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greenfinger[edit]
- Greenfinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable neologism. Prod removed and justified by providing a second source. However, according to WP:NEO a neologism fits the inclusion citeria not simply by being used in reliable sources, but by having articles ABOUT the term in reliable sources. Quoted text from WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." This term clearly fails the inclusion criteria for neologisms, so it should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used the article as I needed to explain the term used elsewhere in wikipedia. I can have a look for other references about the term.Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NEO. If there are articles using neologisms that do not meet the standards of Wikipedia policy, the use of those neologisms should be removed. One should not create an article about a neologism because other articles use the neologism, unless the neologism meets all of the criteria of WP:NEO. It is the same as using the existance of red links in other articles to justify the creation of an article about a person who is non-notable. If the person is not notable, the red links should be removed; the existance of the red links is not in and of itself justification to create an article that does not meet WP:N or its relevant sub-policiesTheseeker4 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 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) 00:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
{{holdon}} Don't use "holdon" here; only when contesting a speedy deletion. BencherliteTalk 09:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This article is of minor importance, however I think it explains the term well. It has been used prominently by a major UK politician, widely reported, and then taken up by others. I'm all for following Wiki guidelines, but this is not an obscure technical term or a piece of regional dialect of little interest outside its area of usage - it's a significant concept of increasing relevance that people may wish to look up and understand.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. WP:NEO covers this pretty well. It may yet become a proper term, but a handful of uses (even by notable people) isn't enough. And, of course, there are no good examples (yet, anyway) of anyone who could be described as a "Greenfinger". Some other neologisms at least have that going for them. Wiktionary may be a better place for this. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 10:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary, which does not yet have an article on this word that appears to meet their inclusion guidelines. JulesH (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal Crime Squad[edit]
- Liberal Crime Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, web-published game. No notable reviews found. Content of article is all in-universe. Atmoz (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I'm finding a lot of references out there, but no reliable sources. For a game that this many people seem to have played, I'm wondering if there might be some offline sourcing. It seems to have recently been updated, given some of the forum posts I found.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 8 January 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, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first AFD was closed "Delete" back in 2006. Pretty long ago but if it's the same or almost the same then G4 might apply. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: Fails WP:Notability due to the extensive coverage being either trivial, unreliable, or non-third party material. I find it shocking that a game with these political undertones and controversial nature has not garnered any media attention, so I'm not strongly supporting a delete, as if such material were found, I would support keeping the article. However, as it stands, I must recommend deleting the article for lack of notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - lets wait on it, this is developing momentum (its and old game that is being re-discovered), and sources will improve. Lets revisit in a few. Compared to poke-cruft, this is a valuable addition, in particular to understand the rogue-like gaming area.--Cerejota (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
K.will[edit]
- K.will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy on this KPop singer because Uhm Jung Hwa album appearance is an assertion of importance. However, I can't find reliable, independent sources in gsearch or gnews search that show notability. Language issues may be hindering this search, so I'm bringing to AfD to get more eyes on it than a prod would have. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient 3rd party verification. JamesBurns (talk) 07:07, 11 January 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) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DisSpam[edit]
- DisSpam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This piece of open-source software was tagged for speedy-deletion as blatant spam. I declined the speedy as I don't think it fits that criterion at all, but after searching for some references to clean up the article, it seems there has been little or no coverage in any reliable sources. Hence, it would appear to fail WP:V and WP:N. ~ mazca t|c 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I can understand why the G11 was declined; it doesn't look like any blatant as far as spam is concerned. However, nothing can be found that can establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 9 January 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) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: DisSpam is spamming up dis wiki. Tavix (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 hot wheels cars[edit]
- 2009 hot wheels cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a directory. A product list is not necessarily notable. Also, it appears this list is trying to list future products, which is against WP:Crystal. swaq 21:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This pretty much requires either a duplication of an external link content or synthesis from multiple sales sources both of which are problematic. I think it's best to link to a list or simply the hotwheels wiki in the main article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 9 January 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) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Last I checked, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a product listing site. Tavix (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A product guide WP is not. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Madcap Theater[edit]
- Madcap Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Local improv theater group that seems to have only local notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The group does only have regional newspaper coverage. However, I figured it having recently been voted the number 1 live comedy show in Denver and having other reviews/articles written about it would be enough to confer notability. For an improv group, this is actually a rather large amount of print coverage (the sources aren't fleeting mentions, but instead actual article-length reviews). The only improv groups that have coverage outside of their own area are groups like The Second City or troupes that travel. If we say that a troupe that has been voted best in its own area is not notable enough for Wikipedia, this would place the bar prohibitively high, causing few groups to qualify for inclusion. Many troupes that are notable within the comedy community would be left out. Full Disclosure: I'm the author of this article. So, Keep SMSpivey (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:29, 9 January 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) 00:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sufficient sources to write a good, neutral article. Some more exist beyond those cited, which is helpful. WilyD 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and expand. Good sufficient sources to show notability. travb (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.