Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 30
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Bad Habits (band). Black Kite 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gloria Wong[edit]
- Gloria Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google searches for "Gloria Wong" + "Bad Habits", Fearless or Nonex do not turn up any bona fide WP:RS, in my opinion. I do not believe she meets our basic WP:BIOGRAPHY criteria at this time. Yes, they have music for sale online and there are social network Ghits, but no reliable sources, from what I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think part of the problem is she's apparently known as Glo Butane when she performs with Bad Habits. There are more Ghits for her as Butane + Bad Habits but still not what one would expect for a band this long established. Perhaps we should merge Gloria Wong/Glo Butane to Bad Habits (band)? They're all atrociously spammy articles but that's not a reason to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The band she is part of seems to have had 2 incarnations, one in the 80's and one now. i dont see any notability for the current lineup, and even if they do pass notabilty, i dont see the individual members getting their own articles at this time. the rest of her ouvre is nonnotable as far as i can tell. it doesnt help that the articles practically shoot themselves in the foot, but i tried to see past that and i cant see much.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A few days ago, I was going to try cleaning up the article, but in terms of what can be properly sourced, there wasn't much to salvage, and after another round of searching for sourcing, I haven't found much. We can at least verify that she's a professional model, but that doesn't amount to notability. I previously cleaned up Bad Habits (band) and there's equally little sourcing to be found, so I would support deleting that article as well if it was to be AfD'd. Mbinebri talk ← 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She is listed in the German Music Royalties Collection Society GEMA (equivalent to MCPS-PRS in U.K.) (if you source www.gema.de) as a member under both the names Gloria Wong and Glo Butane and as a writer with 1/4 copyright ownership on the whole NONEX album Lady Fitness (bar code EAN: 090204897971). Nonex has since disbanded 2001 but have a website printed on their physical albums as www.nonex.com which is possibly misprinted or no longer registered to the music group. Members of bands have notoriously used alias for years and have only recently registered with organizations like MCPS-PRS, GEMA, ASCAP, SESAC and others which collect royalties for them as the same person for their works worldwide as this has only recently been agreed between some of these societies to collect for worldwide releases. Perhaps Gloria Wong/Glo Butane should be merged to Bad Habits (band) as Merecurywoodrose does possibly have a point that there is no reason individual members should be getting their own articles at this time although there has recently been added some verifiable notable information to Gloria Wong/Glo Butane. I think there is also notable information within the Bad Habits (band) article as they did win some chart competitions with their recent line up and perform on Television Broadcasts (BBC) and MTV Pan Asia and MTV Pan Europe and on Digital Television channels FHM TV, Scuzz tv and Kerrang TV and they did feature on the roster of events because of winning competitions which can be sourced. But finding additional sourcing is quite difficult as bands like Gypsy/Bad Habits here with such a long established discography from the 70's and formed well before that date (and possibly in this case Nonex too(as they were formed in 1969)) should not be penalized for not having had access to the internet in their time to create official band websites during their prime to help organize their history/specifics and not confuse them with the other bands that were formed after them with the same or similar names (ie. from other countries etc.) which is why I agree also with what Shawn in Montreal said earlier that although they're atrociously spammy articles that's not a reason to delete.Martial Fartso (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Martial Fartso (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to be sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I recommend to merge Gloria Wong/Glo Butane to Bad Habits (band) as although she does have more notable content than most stub articles there is not enough for inclusion of a biography WP:BIOGRAPHY at this time. I feel she would be better merged as her musical content listed is notable according to WP:MUSIC. Her music is also listed in the GEMA Repertoire (German Licenced Music Repertoire) equivalent to the US recognized ASCAP ACE and BMI Repertoire Search as mentioned in the WP:MUSIC which is for the the German Territories a very strong reliable verifiable source WP:NONENG and therefore a bona fide WP:RS.Martial Fartso (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I do request as the article creater (as Shawn in Montreal(talk)and the nominator of this AFD action added above); as I did not have this article up for very long as it was an imperfect article (and falls in WP:BEFORE category). It was not (and is still not) completed in its finalized form before it was nominated for deletion. I request to the nominator to please reverse your action and to have this article be merged or cleaned up rather than AFD or to have help in having a stub be created for it with the request of expansion as listed in WP:GD (listed under Nomination section) as I do not see it as a hopeless case but a work in progress. I request this as the article's creator as I did not get a chance to speak to the nominator of this action (AFD) about his concerns about the article and discuss ways to improve this article before the action of AFD was taken. Please take into consideration what is says in the WP:GD (listed under Nomination section) "that many good articles started their wikilife in pretty bad shape." I apologize for all the messiness with the facts in this article as all the content in the article is true and all the appearances/interviews in the publications mentioned or registered with the German National and International Television/Radio broadcast stations mentioned can be physically sourced (actually recorded on VHS or tape or printed in publications and I do possess some images of these items that maybe someone (a kind fellow more knowledgeable Wikipedia contributor) can help advise on adding to the article). I will do my best to source all the information necessary to follow the recognized guidelines and make it a brilliant Wikipedia article and ask other Wikipedia contributors to please accept this and assist me in achieving this. Martial Fartso (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no objection to simply turning this into a redirect to Bad Habits (band). It would have the effect of deleting Wong/Butane's separate article and bringing a quick end to this. Anyone object? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Colts-Patriots rivalry. Black Kite 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4th and 2[edit]
- 4th and 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is purely WP:NOTNEWS, just because a coach makes an obvious mistake that basically cost his team the game it doesn't mean the game is notable enough for an article. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into Colts–Patriots rivalry. While the play was a big blip in that rivalry, it probably doesn't deserve an article all on its own. I think however, it would fit nicely in the article on the rivalry itself. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep- one of the most talked about NFL regular season calls of all time and by far of this season. However, maybe the article should be on the game like the 2007 pats-giants regular season one.--Levineps (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because WP:NOTNEWS. Obviously a stupid play is going to generate a bunch of news immediately; most of the time it is then promptly forgotten. If we find that in a few years people are still talking about it, then we have some notability. I also have a problem with the naming: "4th and 2" is something that happens pretty frequently. WHat are we going to do, name it 4th and 2 (stupid play)? Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge to Colts-Patriots rivalry. Stupid perhaps, but not encyclopedically (is that a word?) notable. Grsz11 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge into Colts-Patriots rivalry. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the rivalry article and mention it in 2009 New England Patriots season too. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? How about 4th and 26, it has its own article, so why not for 4th and 2? Talladega87 (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That one was subject to AFD as well, and survived marginally. In any case it was written two years after the game in which the play occurred, ample time for it to prove its notability. Eventually this play could prove itself too. Mangoe (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no point in deleting this since anyone who follows the NFL will remember this for a long time.
- Merge into Colts-Patriots rivalry. ArcAngel (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ersatz Deutsche Harte[edit]
- Ersatz Deutsche Harte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced original research, probably by the band itself. No google hits as well. Lacrimus (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too obscure or hoax? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs) 06:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only hits are here. I'm also suspicious whether Hanzel und Gretyl meets WP:BAND. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm finding zero coverage for this music term/style/genre. Gongshow Talk 18:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a thing made up one day -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above and WP:NEO. SpinningSpark 21:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and rename. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009-10 UNLV Rebels Basketball team[edit]
- 2009-10 UNLV Rebels Basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, and is made out of only two infoboxes, not to mention, the team does not even exist. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- Extremely redundant deletion request, and no offense, an incredibly stupid statement saying the team does not exist when they won a title in 1990, is currently ranked in the AP AND ESPN Top 25 and just beat one of the best teams in the nation. Already put in some sources on the article. Str8cash (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The team is not called the Rebels, there called the Running Rebles. When this closes move the page 2009-10 UNLV Running Rebels Basketball season to match with other pages. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- I'm sorry i'm not sure i've ever heard them being called the "Running Rebles"? There is such a team called the Rebels and if you don't believe me, here's a link; UNLV Rebels. I don't think the word "Running" is exactly verifying the team does not exist. Str8cash (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me but its called the UNLV Runnin' Rebels. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- I'm sorry i'm not sure i've ever heard them being called the "Running Rebles"? There is such a team called the Rebels and if you don't believe me, here's a link; UNLV Rebels. I don't think the word "Running" is exactly verifying the team does not exist. Str8cash (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The team is not called the Rebels, there called the Running Rebles. When this closes move the page 2009-10 UNLV Running Rebels Basketball season to match with other pages. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- Extremely redundant deletion request, and no offense, an incredibly stupid statement saying the team does not exist when they won a title in 1990, is currently ranked in the AP AND ESPN Top 25 and just beat one of the best teams in the nation. Already put in some sources on the article. Str8cash (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename – to conform to other UNLV basketball pages it should be renamed 2009–10 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team. See, e.g., 1990–91 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team, 1989–90 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team, or 1986–87 UNLV Runnin' Rebels basketball team. There are now some citations, and as the season progresses, I imagine that will expand. Meets notability requirements. I think the nomination for deletion was premature as it was nominated a mere 30 minutes after page creation. —Ute in DC (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a reasonable start. UNLV has a pretty well-known basketball program, and plenty of sources are available. The UNLV website uses both Runnin' Rebels and Rebels to refer to its sports teams. I personally don't care which one we use, as long as we're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename per Ute in DC. It's definitely too soon to nominate a page within 30 minutes after creation, that's hardly fair for a subject generally considered to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - And consider move if "Runnin' Rebels" is the more appropriate title. Rlendog (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok,ill move team to season and Rebels to Runnin' Rebels to match with other sports articles. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
- Keep Notable program, as evidenced by source material and a simple google search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ann rename The rebels are now a ranked team. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jigsaw Personnel Pty Ltd[edit]
- Jigsaw Personnel Pty Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable labour hire company - no online references aside from mention in online trade directories. Surfing bird (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous advertising: Although having established a reputation for supplying quality specialist staff to the Timber and Forestry Industry, Jigsaw Personnel has evolved into a labour hire company supplying qualified staff to a diverse range of industries. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, heaps of similar companies come and go all the time. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable -Regancy42 (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no hits in the news archive for this company - non-notable. SpinningSpark 22:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico in World War I[edit]
- Mexico in World War I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article, which was originally written in Spanish, remains orphaned and contains only two things not already mentioned in History of Mexico: a single sentence noting that World War I brought economic benefits to Mexico, and the full text of General Zimmerman's telegram.WP:NPS applies to the latter, and no citation is given for the former. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mentioned that it doesn't meet WP:N. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Zimmermann Telegram and add any useful information. It would probably be a useful search for people who have heard about the telegram, but can't recall the name. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! I looked for such an article, but even though I had it in the back of my head at a couple of points that it was strange that this German name ended in -man rather than -mann, I never thought to look for Zimmermann telegram with two n's. In that case, this is the perfect solution, unless someone thinks that the sentence about the economic benefits to Mexico should migrate to another article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the tidbits of info as noted above. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It may be true that the article currently has little in it that is not already included, or could not be merged, elsewhere. On the other hand it is capable of being substantially expanded, there is a large body of material on this subject, for instance [1] and [2] and a decent, informative, well-referenced article can easily be written. SpinningSpark 23:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and expand. Part of a series found in Category:World War I by country. Each country involved should have its article/category. Hmains (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. There is no Wikipedia principle that for every item in a list, there must be an article, and there are guidelines that make it clear that the contrary is true. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
Orangutang (band)[edit]
- Orangutang (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article about a band, tagged for notability since Oct 2008. PROD was seconded but declined in June with a promise of sources; however, despite a reminder 8 weeks ago, this has not been fulfilled. I could not find WP:RS about the band or its main album, and gHits for Orangutang with "Christian Dyas" are mainly copies of this page. The best I could find [3] is from MIT campus paper The Tech. Fayenatic (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do apologize about not getting back to the article to source properly. Unfortunately, I have been unable to do very little article work in recent times. That said, Wikipedia has no deadline and my failure shouldn't count against the band. There are plenty of good sources out there, including reviews\coverage by The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Boston Globe, and others. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag for rescue and keep per WP:BAND, as showing evidence of a National tour, but User:ThaddeusB, please add the cites. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources provided by ThaddeusB. Agreed that these cites should be added to article. Gongshow Talk 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Orangutang (band) and redirect Orangutang to Orangutan, since Google Scholar reveals that it is an alternate spelling of the great ape. And I think it's also the much more likely result people are looking for. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Adequate coverage to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the link to Google news at the top of the AFD, and you get results. The article from the Washington Post titled "Orangutang Rocks On Melodic Metal", seems to indicate notability. Dream Focus 09:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there are plenty of possibilities for improvement given the work of the folks above. Also, I agree with the Rename suggestion too. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE I've performed the move/redirect suggested above, but screwed it up by capitalizing "band". No observation as to notability. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A Bot should take care of that troublesome redirect eventually. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. WP:BEFORE would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a bit harsh, I did my best, as described above. I even searched the Washington Post website, as Thaddaeus had previously referred to that when declining the PROD, but could not find any articles about this band without subscribing there. Anyway, I'm happy to close it as Keep now that sources have been cited. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DaisyDisk[edit]
- DaisyDisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software article. All sources are catalogs, download databases, etc, not RS, and not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Joe Chill (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As mentioned above plenty of reviews and news about it on blogs such as [9], [10], and even some from other countries. Some of the software catalogs in the source's also have an editor's review of them. - EdoDodo talk 06:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of news sources covering this, as Google News search does clearly indicated. Mac Plus [11] is one good example. Use Google news search next time, before you nominate something. Dream Focus 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article on Mac Plus is about the software "Space in Time" but this deletion discussion is about the software "DaisyDisk." Did you mean to link to something else? The google news results I see are all very short or version announcements which are insignificant and do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per precedent set for such articles... and why are there so many Russian authors covering this software? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned in the history section of the article the two developers are Taras Brizitsky and Oleg Krupnov, who from their names sound Russian. - EdoDodo talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SSHBlock[edit]
- SSHBlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this script. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. fetchcomms☛ 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BURDEN, no sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage for the named subject. JBsupreme (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one of the suggestions for Keep addressed any problems with notability. Black Kite 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IDeneb[edit]
- IDeneb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability. Cman (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could use work, but I know there are sources out there. Perhaps userfy or incubate? fetchcomms☛ 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to OSX86, one of the few Mac OS X distros for regular x86 PCs. That makes it notable in my book, at the very least to be mentioned on the OSX86 page. --SF007 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge just found this page via google and appreciated the information given --129.125.103.228 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article helped me understand what options there were for my netbook. i would like it to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.242.134 (talk • contribs) 15:41, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails notability CynofGavuf 11:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom for failing WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Industrial Data Exchange[edit]
- Industrial Data Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This software's real name is IDXSuite, for which there are no sources in the specialized Google searches at all; Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. The words "Industrial Data Exchange" happen to occur from time to time in Google searches, but none have anything to do with this software. Also, the article makes no claim of notability for the software, and provides no secondary sources. Prodded upon creation in 2008 and deprodded by the article's author. Glittering Pillars (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: because it has no credible claim of notability, and there do not appear to be secondary sources available. Also, it looks like spam created by a SPA and it is a possible copyright violation from the company's webpage. – jaksmata 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous advertising without any claim of historical or technical importance: IDX bridges the gap between monitoring and control systems with transactional business systems... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW, there is no doubt that the article does not meet the WP:GNG and is WP:MADEUP by its own admission. SpinningSpark 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Battleton[edit]
- Battleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable game - article was previously a redirect to Dulverton as Battleton is the name of a hamlet within the parish — Rod talk 21:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this falls under non-notable, it was just made up one day. Dogposter 21:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (only revisions that relate to the game - leave it as a redirect as it was here) This game was made up in school 14 days ago. – jaksmata 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to original, if this were a new article, it would have been a prod. fetchcomms☛ 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The game seems legit and I have added a disambiguation link to the header for the aforementioned Parish. --94.172.11.43 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore redirect. This is a classic example of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
T party[edit]
- T party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I usually do not nominate things for deletion but this is one of the cases I feel it's necessary. The author contested the prod but admits that the topic is not referenced and from all I tried, it probably can't be referenced. The sources provided do not mention the term at all and there is little reason to believe that this is a notable concept. Regards SoWhy 20:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor variant on "Party crew" which doesnt have an article yet. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, no sources found from a google. In the 2 sources cited, none of them mention the name. (probably local slang) RandomTime 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two of the three references don't even refer to this topic. ~YellowFives 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ruffians Collective[edit]
- The Ruffians Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. DB denied by second editor (as that second editor's first and only contribution to Wikipedia to date). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most Certainly fails WP:BAND. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Wikipedia:CSD#A7 – jaksmata 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus to keep. It would be nice if those who found sources would add them to the article. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miessence[edit]
- Miessence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product line Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per the large amount of reliable news stories. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was able to find numerous secondary sources to confirm that this is a global and notable company. – jaksmata 21:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per the sources in the article and the sources in the above Google News search. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Per all the above who did google searches.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one review isn't enough to show notability. Fences&Windows 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wake Up! Aria[edit]
- Wake Up! Aria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None notable pornographic anime OVA. Has only received one "micro review" from a reliable source[12], which isn't enough to pass WP:NOTE. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It gets reviewed [13]. The quality level of the audio and video and packaging are there, that including it, then it gets mentioned on its own for a bit. There isn't much to say in a review about this, but that doesn't make the review less valid. Dream Focus 08:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see a needs more references tag dated September 2006 at the top of the article. If this was really as notable as people may claim it to be then there would be more out there to work with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure what that means. I get over 400,000 Google hits. There seems to be plenty out there to work with, even if most of those hits do not meet WP:RS. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The Wikipedia policy is to use WP:Common Sense, and decide for yourself. If even 400,000 people know what it is, then its notable. And of course, far more than just those talking about it on a forum, or hosting it somewhere, have heard of it. The suggested guidelines can be ignored, they holding no weight whatsoever, just suggestions to help people make a decision. You decide on your own whether the article should be kept or not, whether it helps the encyclopedia to keep things like this in it WP:IAR, and then state your opinion here. Never hesitate to say what is on your mind, everyone entitled to their own opinions. Dream Focus 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure what that means. I get over 400,000 Google hits. There seems to be plenty out there to work with, even if most of those hits do not meet WP:RS. Rlendog (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In my Google search I only turn up 33 hits, and none of those seem to be a reliable source. ArcAngel (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Ross[edit]
- Matthew Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined WP:CSD#A7, as there is some assertion of notability. This does not appear to be a blatant hoax, but neither can I find any reliable sources supporting inclusion. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a bio of a radio personality with no sources given. I found one mention of him at the radio station's website, but that was it. Given the user name of the first contributor, Matthewshaneross (talk · contribs), I think the article is unlikely to be supported by secondary sources and will remain with conflict of interest issues. – jaksmata 22:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vanity article about a non-notable person. andy (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In addition to the very obvious conflict of interest involved in its creation, it does not meet WP:CREATIVE (under which journalists are included). It's not a hoax, but it does not meet notability standards. Vanity page. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Muhammad Mustansar[edit]
- Muhammad Mustansar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual known for collection of pacifiers. Lacks GHits of substance and has zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm unclear BLP1E applies as I am not sure having a lot of pacifiers counts as an E. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This individual has only trivial coverage in one secondary source. No substantial coverage (WP:BIO). – jaksmata 22:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a notable concept, consensus to soft redirect to Wiktionary. Fences&Windows 21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doorbuster[edit]
- Doorbuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dictionary definition, unsourced since NOVEMBER FREAKING 2006. Absolutely no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete from WP. This is dictionary material only. Once you have said what it means there is nothing more to explain, so no article. Borock (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Black Friday I think this could be best served merging and redirecting to the article on Black Friday, as that seems to be the major association, and let the rest go to Wikitionary. Angryapathy (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Nothing wrong with mentioning it as a part of that. Borock (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WiktionaryWhile Black Friday is a somewhat-sensible redirect target it implies that doorbusters don't happen at other times of the year, which is false. In particular, I've heard phrases like "grand opening doorbuster specials" or "special inventory liquidation doorbuster specials" in months other than November. I have WP:PRODed Serverbuster. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Delete as it's already in Wiktionary. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Soft-redirect per Cybercobra below may be okay. How common is soft-redirecting to Wiktionary? If it's extremely rare then don't do it, if it's common, then do it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I agree that serverbuster should also be deleted. A Wiktionary article exists for doorbuster. – jaksmata 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Black Friday per User:Angryapathy, and redirect. It is almost exclusively a Black Friday sale in the United States, and less known elsewhere. There is no harm in mentioning it, and it deals with the WP:DICDEF and WP:UNDUE issues. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Redirect to Wiktionary via {{wi}}; it's not unreasonable for the reader to think we might have an article on this. I have seen the term used on days other than Black Friday, so redirecting there would be incorrect. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Redirect as per above. I oppose a merge to Black Friday as doorbusters are not exclusive to Black Friday, and most of the world doesn't celebrate American Thanksgiving with massive retail promotions. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect per above. {{wi}} is transcluded more than 500 times, so I'd say it's fairly common. Tim Song (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Redirect per Cybercobra ArcAngel (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)[edit]
- Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased albums are generally not notable. No reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there definately was a planning to release this album, and all songs were really considered as real, and it's nice to know about it. RuuBjAh (talk) 21:28, 30 November, 2009
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No position yet but unreleased albums can be notable if they meet WP:GNG. This happens a lot with famous albums by famous musicians. I'm sure the posthumous album by Michael Jackson met notability requirements pretty much from the day it was announced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, unreleased albums can be notable, but they generally are not, per WP:MUSIC. This one, however, does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. At the moment, it has coverage in two blogs. I might be "nice to know about", but without reliable sources, we don't know anything. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As WP:NALBUMS states, "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." As far as I can tell, no such confirmations exist at this time (with the title being perhaps an exception). While some sources exist which touch on the rumors/possibilities of the album, I'm not convinced there's enough in-depth coverage to come close to approaching the Chinese Democracy exception cited in WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's obvious by now that an album by this title is not going to happen. And I did a thorough survey of available sourcing re: this album before removing the bulk of the material from Lindsay Lohan, to where a previous incarnation of this article had been merged. A few songs were confirmed as having been written for the album, and a few producers had confirmed they had been or were going to work with Lohan. Maybe enough material for a sentence or three, but nowhere near the significant coverage from multiple sources required by the GNG. See also previous merge/redirect discussion from January 09 at Talk:Lindsay Lohan's third album. Nothing new of substance or any new sources have really surfaced since then. Siawase (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to prove notability. Bravedog (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of “notability” is produced. (Draft could be kept in userspace or on some localhost of interested editor(s) until album develops “notability”.) —SlamDiego←T 16:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just for reference, a better sourced "draft" version can be found in the history of Lindsay Lohan's third album, ie [14]. Siawase (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harmony Hood[edit]
- Harmony Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another article about a not-yet-notable band associated with the X Factor: it does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Reached the top 24 in the X Factor (but WP:MUSIC requires top three in a music contest), has released one single on a non-notable label (but WP:MUSIC requires a chart entry or multiple releases on a major label) and references are all related to the X Factor (WP:1E) or local in scope. Delete. I42 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't these be merged to some kind of list? Polarpanda (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they have a record deal, released a single/video, local notoriety, a couple of separate sources in their references. That being said, their record company isn't the most reputable (there is a somewhat well known Influential Entertainment; this isn't it) and their exposure elsewhere is limited. WP:MUSIC is somewhat clear here; though the wikipedia guidelines are just this. For the sake of common sense here, I would advocate a Weak Save Cheers, Jonomacdrones (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The band are notable and known, there are a lot of good references in the article. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability outside X-Files or whatever they were on with the exception of switching on some lights. I've been switching on lights since 1985 and noone's written me an article yet. raseaCtalk to me 03:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Same reasoning as others above. ZephyrWind (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely not notable in anyway. I really dont see how they warrant their own page when finalists such as Lloyd Daniels have recently lost their own pages. (And rightly so) They are essentially just another local band who did reasonably on the X Factor. They may have a record deal, but so do hundreds of singers who dont have an article, and they may have released a single, but its not like it sold anything either. Sorry but big big big big delete (Kyleofark (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury Messenger[edit]
- Mercury Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. Tagged as spam for months. Tagged for cleanup almost two years. This article does not meet our criteria and is not getting any attention. Searching for sources for both Mercury Messenger and dMSN does not find non-trivial sources. Several books mention it as an alternative MSN client for Macs, but this is a mere mention in lists, not significant coverage to this software. Miami33139 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate any coverage in reliable sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Haakon (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I too am unable to locate significant coverage. That's the bottom line. JBsupreme (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Wolfert[edit]
- Jeff Wolfert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He never played professionally, only had a tryout with a team, doesnt meet WP:Athlete Yankees10 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless anyone can show enough notability someplace else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wolfert is notable for his accomplishments as a college player even if never plays a game in the NFL. He holds the all-time Univ. of Missouri records for scoring in a season and in a career. He was a consensus first-team All-Big 12 Conference player and an Honorable Mention All-American per Sports Illustrated. He has received extensive media coverage for his accomplishments, including a feature story in USA Today here. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cbl62's reasoning. RF23 (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cbl.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree per Cbl62's reasoning. BCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.189.131.65 (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bike MS: Beyond the Beltway[edit]
- Bike MS: Beyond the Beltway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable, strictly local fundraising event for a national nonprofit organization. Although a well-intended endeavor, this particular event has little encyclopedic value on its own terms. Warrah (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. Only refs seems to be links to the event's official website, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this event. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Significant coverage would warrant a keep on this one, but I just can't find it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ultraexactzz, we need more than just primary sources. JBsupreme (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete !votes. -- Atama頭 06:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington)[edit]
- BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has no claims to notability, aside from recently-reverted (apparent) self-promotion from a teacher mentioned in a local paper. I've done a search for coverage to indicate notability but I've come up empty. Per WP:SCHOOL, it was proposed that all high schools merit inclusion but that guideline was rejected. Absent evidence of notability the article should be deleted. -- Atama頭 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the discovery of sources that suggest at least weak notability, the overwhelming support for keeping the article, and the lack of support for deletion I would prefer to withdraw the nomination of deletion for the article. -- Atama頭 06:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary schools are generally kept and there are WP:V/WP:RS available for school. tedder (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have mentioned that this is an alternative school, with a very small faculty and fewer than 200 students. The usual arguments for keeping high schools shouldn't apply here; in fact I would argue that it is less notable than most middle or primary schools. -- Atama頭 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative schools are still schools; are you implying that a secondary school must have N students to be notable? tedder (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suggesting that all articles should meet the basic notability requirements for inclusion, or merit some other inclusion criteria (like something at WP:BIO). There currently is nothing for schools beyond WP:N or possibly WP:CORP, neither of which this article would pass. If you want to argue that it should be kept because most high school articles are kept, it's worth exploring why high schools are kept when middle and elementary schools are not. Other than size, what is the difference? -- Atama頭 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of which schools should be kept is sort of a metadiscussion, isn't it? The primary vs secondary argument has been somewhat covered by Wikipedia:SCHOOL#Indicators of probable notability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education. However, this school can easily be found with verifiable/reliable sources, such as NCES and NAAS, not to mention at the local government/education district level. tedder (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean, "easily found". Are you referring to sources that verify the existence of the school? I won't argue that. Sources that cover the school in depth? That's different. I tried finding such without success, if you have better luck than myself in doing that and can show that the school is notable then my reason for nominating this article is rendered moot and I'll withdraw. Without such coverage this nomination will stand. -- Atama頭 19:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Define "in depth". Are you looking for verbose, or for many facts about the school? Both NCES and NAAS give some decent information (enrollment, grades served, staffing). That's certainly more than mere existence. tedder (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That kind of public information can be found for any school. Even the elementary school I went to as a child has that kind of coverage. Something like a book written about it, a newspaper article written about the school (not one that mentions it in passing, such as talking about a teacher or student who went to the school). Something along those lines is generally what we look for in any Wikipedia article. I don't suppose that every school that ever existed should have an article on Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per tedder. In addition (although I would not require it for a high school), a Google News search does turn up some WP:RS sources that coverthe school and its efforts on behalf of disadvantaged or disabled kids, including some amusing/inspiring stuff about its "Rock School." A few examples:[15] [16][17][18][19] I don't think this legitimate, evidently admirable, and at least locally notable institution is the appropriate test case for blowing up the long-accepted consensus that legitimate high schools qualify for articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd like to point out that "Rock School" is completely independent of BEST, per your own sources, and the notability of one shouldn't be conflated with the other. It just happens to have taken place in the same building. The other articles only mention the school in passing. -- Atama頭 19:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This isn't about the middle school. Writing about the school is simply an excuse for bringing in dirt about two different persons who happened to have taught at the school. Forget WP:ORG, I'd worry more about WP:BLP. I'm waiting for someone to add a story about a teacher touching someone's breast. Mandsford (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand your comment, which doesn't seem to have any connection to the article at question here. You posted exactly the same comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Rushe Middle School, referencing a school in Florida--perhaps your post here was in error? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely! I don't know how that happened, but thanks for pointing it out. In this case, it's Keep. I had a real good statement about how it shouldn't make a difference that BEST High is an alternative school and that high schools are inherently notable and so on and so forth and apparently saved something else right over the top of it. I talk too much. Mandsford (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that I don't understand that deletion argument either, and I'm the one who nominated this for deletion in the first place. -- Atama頭 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't understand your comment, which doesn't seem to have any connection to the article at question here. You posted exactly the same comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles S. Rushe Middle School, referencing a school in Florida--perhaps your post here was in error? --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's notable. It's a high school, it has operated for 42 years, it's an alternative school (meaning unusual curriculum), etc., etc. Those are attributes of notability -- not to mention the teacher who got significant recognition and the "Rock School" that operates on its campus. Furthermore, although I have not yet seen a third-party source that could be used as the sole basis for a well-developed encyclopedia article, I've found plenty of 3rd-party sources providing coverage: articles comparing the school's annual test scores and dropout rate to other schools in the area, articles about BEST students participating in various events, the CV of the architect who designed it, and even a couple of published items that I included in the article as references. --Orlady (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've yet to see a high school article deleted (other than vandalism), and I concur with that consensus, regardless of the size of the high school.--Milowent (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the basis that it *could* be fixed - but it shouldn't be left in this state for too long. Keeping for now to allow improvement - but I'll re-AfD it myself if further improvement and sources are not forthcoming. Black Kite 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of cities by GDP[edit]
- List of cities by GDP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article based on single study (not a source), dubious content.
Not only has this article been created around the theorizing of a single source, I find it to be dubious in nature: based on a PriceWaterhouseCoopers study, it is almost an advertisement for the same company. This company does not cite its sources, nor does it even state where it gets its data or how it comes up with its numbers. As for the reason several seem to question this source's validity, as do I, I can speak for France as an example: In France, the only economical data available is from its administrative areas - communes, départements and régions - and the numbers PWC cites do not at all correspond to this. In reading their study we see that they've based their data on city urban areas, but in France the only thing the urban area (unité urbain) statistical area is used for is demographics (and it changes with every census), thus I don't know how PWC could come up with their numbers - it can only be an estimation. I have doubts about both the veracity and importance of this article - an article written around one source is a no-no here, and when the statistics it "creates" are both unreferenced and dubious, even more. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons above. THEPROMENADER 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't proposition when it comes to citing the information in a table to any number of sources. It there were more than one, we would run into problems with original synthesis. As someone pointed out to me once, we don't ask for our sources to provide their sources. It's a legitimate enough topic, measuring domestic product by a metropolitan area rather than by a national boundaries. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A list of estimates copied from the source that made them is not article content. You can, on the other hand, create a "PWC estimates on World City GDP" article. In all honesty, I don't see how PWC's estimates can by cited as fact by any article - unless the phrase citing PWC mentions explicitly "according to PWC estimates". THEPROMENADER 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because this is really a rip-off (copyright violation) of Waterhouse's article. You can't just reprint someone else's work. The information is very useful and interesting however. It would be better to link to the original article as a "see also" in City and perhaps some other related articles. 76.126.9.65 (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The report wasn't directly copied, it was just the numbers. It's also referenced and given credit so it's not like we're stealing information. We're not passing it off as our own nor are we using their information for profit. Their data isn't even being used for profit. Furthermore, if the actual report was copied with all their explanations and stuff, the article would be much longer than it is now. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "It was just the numbers." - hm. The numbers are indeed copied, none can deny that. The problem is, the numbers are the company's own work - did they publish it under a GPL licence or something of the sort? Citing an article is one thing, copying it by rote is another. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes many articles are copied by rote. Especially practically every article listed at Lists of countries and every other list I've seen. I don't see anyone nominating those articles for deletion or complaining that they are merely copies of some other person's work. Many, actually almost all and every other list I can think off are lists articles I've come to experience are based on another company's or organizations work and the "numbers" are copied directly. So would you be willing to nominate for deletion more than a 1000 articles if not more for nomination then? Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's a rather weak argument - none can contest the fact that countries exist, so it is only normal that they be listed by many publications. The numbers in this list, however, are the product of one company using its own (largely undisclosed) method, and copying their work is plagarism, nothing else. The content of the PWC website is copyrighted, by the way, if you care to look at their cover page. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not plagiarism though. Plagiarism is copying somebody's own work and passing it off as your own or not giving credit to the author where you got the information from. The lead sentence says it's from PWC. The numbers are cited to PWC. So we're not passing it off as our own work. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As usual, I see the opposition to this article more to do with personal bias rather than a logical argument as to why and how the data is wrong. Someone sees the list, gets upset that their city/country, or favorite city/country isn't up there, and either try to edit the list to suit their personal agenda, or try to have the whole article "deleted". There was a big issue with someone obviously from Taiwan in the past when Taipei didn't make the cut, and thus after attempting many times to manipulate the article, tried to delete as well.
PROMENADER, based on your logic, we should also delete the [list by GDP] as well as the UN HDI, because the sources come from "dubious" places as well such as the CIA, the IMF, and the World Bank, and that we should apply the tag you suggest "list of GDP as compiled by the IMF, World Banks, IMF, as well. Besides, you mentioning that PWC didn't state where they "got their sources" is a bit dishonest considering that they were extremely clear about it on the main page: https://www.ukmediacentre.pwc.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=3421&NewsAreaID=2 as well as on the PDF, as they got it from other sources and methodologies as well. They even give a person to call and email if you have further questions, which is what I suggest you do if you feel that their reasoning and data isn't clear enough for you.
- Comment - There's nothing personal at all about it - and nothing can change the fact that the Wikipedia, in fact, is the source - it was copied directly from it. As for their methods, still not clear in their sources, they result in self-admittedly approximate results (if you would cite the whole text) that belong to them alone - making the cut-and-copy of their work to here even more damning. What brought my attention to this is the fact that even though it is not possible to contrive "urban area" economic data in France from official sources, this article, admittedly based on estimates, is presented as fact. Even if the article should be deleted for its plagaristic qualities, it should at least be moved to a more appropriate namespace that mentions its original authours and the nature of its content. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I and others have mentioned before in regards to this, have the article setup like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Country GDP list. Have a compare and contrast sorted out by charts with different sources. PWC isn't the only one that does this as the The Economist Intelligence Unit as well as some national governments do that as well. Are those "advertisements" for the World Bank, and UN as well?
Deleting an article that contains actual, factual information based on the fact that you harbor a personal bias against PWC, that you personally disagree with PWC's methods and results, is intellectually dishonest at the least, and a bit childish and silly. If this is the basis for the deletion of this article then I will have the deletion tag removed by a moderator and have this discussion closed. (talk) 24:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a good reference to have. There's already a problem with you're statement PROMENADER that the company does not disclose it's sources. From the source under section III.2 Data and methodology used to derive city GDP estimates and projections. It states the following: Our primary estimates of 2008 city output are based on combining UN population estimates for 2008 with estimates of income per capita, as summarised in Table 3.24. It's a combination of their own data (every organization has there own data and doesn't disclose how they got it) along with definitions used by the UN. The limits of the definition of each city are based on the UN definitions. I know UN definitions are horribly inaccurate, the most inaccurate agglomeration list I've ever seen. But we keep the UN agglomeration article list because it's a good reference to have like what I said in the beginning. I also agree with what Eman said. If you have a problem, take it up to the UN. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia has part of the functionality of an almanac, so this material is appropriate--that's one of our basic principles. Since we don't do research--another of our basic principles-- we are inevitably stuck with using the results of those who do. We should always look for better sources, but we use what we have. Delete the Wikipedia articles that are less than perfect and we'll have nothing left at all. And nobody has a copyright on data. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the above keeps. Just the sort of list WP should have.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a daft argument to say that "an article written around one source is a no-no here" - on the contrary, with such lists they must by definition come from a single source or you'll end up with a dog's breakfast of data compiled by differing methods. The value of this list is mainly in its comparative use. The source itself is generally accepted in the field as being highly reliable. If you've got a problem with just one source being used, then add new columns to the right of or separate tables below what's already there. Otherwise, I agree with the views expressed in the preceding 'keeps'. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia:Articles_with_a_single_source THEPROMENADER 09:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles_with_a_single_source is merely an essay containing the personal opinions of a couple of editors. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But without PWC. The article requires sure sources. Elk Salmon (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Though more sources should definitely be found.Greyhood (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of find another source. --Zhonghuo (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. actually i'm a great fan of such lists. but lists are only good if the items can be compared. else a list serves no purpose. the reason the cities on this list cannot be compared is because they are a mix of numbers based either on municipal borders, urban areas, metro-areas, county borders or regions etc. at least the area the gdp refers to should be properly defined, an info i doubt the defender of these lists or even pwc can supply. secondly, the cities can only be compared if the gdp is broken down per capita. in addition, i happen to know the official figures for german cities, be they municipalities, regions or metropolitan areas. as far as the german ones go, this list is totally wrong. so this says enough about the reliability of pwc. finally, as far as i checked it out, the figures in this list very much in contradict the ones given in the respective articles of the cities. can it get any more confusing?Sundar1 (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sundar1, Promenader, ElkSamon, if you claim to have other sources, that is good! Please provide it by adding it to the article! You all claim to have more reliable data and sources, but have yet to still provide them, and keep instead bringing up "the single source" issue, even though there are hundreds of articles on wikiepdia that have a single source. Furthermore, if the single source was not PwC, but the UN, as it seems you prefer, would it be OK then? Again, follow the guidelines and criteria as seen in the of countries by GDP. PwC as a private NGO is no more or no less legitimate than the UN or the French or German Government. Again, I see more personal bias against PwC and a preference towards National Government Statistics which are equally dubious in addition to the fact that, that is where PwC is actually getting their information from if any of you actually cared to read the actual PDF. Eman007 (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was adding official sources before. The article was just lately renovated and all figures were replaced by new PWC figures. I'm going to readd official sources, but unlike before as additional column, instead of PWC replacement. Elk Salmon (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am an ardent fan of such lists. However, this one is completely useless. As the list itself admits, the list uses metropolitan areas to calculate GDP for some cities (usually American and Japanese ones) and just city-proper for others (usually European and Asian cities). For example, if you were to include Seoul's metropolitan area in the calculation, the city's GDP would certainly shoot past 400 and probably 500 billion, placing it ahead of Osaka and Philadelphia. PwC, the author of the list, did a great harm when it used shoddy professionalism to complete a work that millions of people must be referencing to. The damage must be contained. (1tephania (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment 1tephania, are you saying that the Seoul's GDP is 90% of that of S. Korea entire nominal GDP of 900m? A bit tough to believe. Provide evidence? Cite your source! (Eman007 (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - The problem with finding other sources for a list of this type is that there are no sources - GDP data in most countries is limited to administrative boundaries, not demographic spread, so there are no official sources for the (quite fictional) "city GDP"; until there is a worldwide standard for measuring urban spread, and economical statistics are taken within, any list of this type will be always be questionable and controversial. IMHO this list is just a tool for the "my city is bigger than yours" game that it quite rampant between wikipedia city articles; I'm sure that many authors of this article are contributors to city articles as well, which may explain why it's held onto so dearly in spite of the rather obvious arguments against its existence. THEPROMENADER 08:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -Promenader, based on your faulty and farcical logic, we should also delete the Country list by GDP too because its "my country is richer than yours". In fact Forbes should stop the Richest Person in the world list as well because its "i'm richer than you" list too right? And again, a question you never answered: How is PwC any more or any less legitimate than the UN, or the World Bank? Which is where in fact PwC says its getting its data from?
You are also being a bit dishonest when you say "no official sources" when others here have said that there are other sources for data and wanted to, or are going to, add them to the list. When I updated the list last month, there actually were other sources used as reference. In fact, I was easily able to find the GDP for German and British cities from their respective websites. And, as I mentioned before, the Economist Intelligence Unit does this kind of list as well.
This list is no different than the Most expensive cities in the world or the most livable cities list, both of which, like this article were done by a singular source, a private NGO, in those cases Mercer, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, and none are official stats from national governments, but for some reason you are quiet in regards to those. But you are all jumping up and down for this one in particular, which denotes a private agenda and a personal bias, particularly either against PwC, or that you are upset that your favorite City didn't make the cut. As others have said, if you have a problem with it PwC, take it up with them personal, but you shouldn't deny interesting and valuable information on wikipedia just because you have a problem with it. (Eman007 (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - Calling an argument farcicical and faulty doesn't make it so, so adopt a more polite tone, please. Comparing this article to others isn't an argument either - especially when the articles you cite do have multiple sources, and just because there exist other articles that copy from a single source doesn't make the practice right. This article is a cut-and-copy of PWC's work, and their methods are doubtful because there are no official sources for the type of numbers they create - end of story - and PWC is not an official source itself. A look at this basic fact and the article's talk page is proof enough of this. THEPROMENADER 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Promenader, you say that "Comparing this article to others isn't an argument either" but then just earlier you used other single sourced articles for deletion as an argument which isn't much of an argument either. Especially since there are hundreds of articles on wikipedia that are single sourced without any issue. Secondly, many of the users on this talk page have also compared this to the other lists as well. Comparing this list to the other lists is a very valid argument, because its a similar type of data with similar sources and use of such data. You also seem to constantly ignore the Keep arguments in that 1. This is NOT a copy and pasted article and no different than others. 2. And that PwC DOES have official sources that others posting on this page have read and acknowledge, but you continue to deny, ignore, and constantly weave change your argument. You first say that there are "no official sources" without any proof of that, then when people post here that they DO have official sources to add to the list, you now change it around to the single source issue and the problem you have with PwC. Again, that is not an logical argument. That sounds more like bias.
You can continue to deny this, play games as far as circular ignoring outright PwC sources and criteria, as well as what others have said from the "Keep" arguments, but it looks like on this talk page alone, the Keeps outnumber the Deletes. One or two more keeps, and we can consider this issue dropped and closed and put up a "Disputed Sources" Tag on the page instead. Again as I others here on this talk page have said, take up your personal issues with PwC with PwC and leave them off of Wikipedia. Other users here on this talk page have said there are sources and will volunteer to add them to the page.Eman007 (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of course, adding other sources would make this article valid, but the problem is that, when you do, the list will always be contested because, as there is no unique international method for determining city spread/pdg, those involved in the very immature "my city is bigger than yours" battle (IMHO the very purpose of this article) will favour "sources" that favour their "own" city. Again, this article in its present state is plagarism because it is a direct copy of a single company's work - and since making an article from multiple sources would be impossible if it were to have any coherency, it is a project condemned from the get-go. What has to change is the context - to become an actual article and not a copied list, this article has to present itself as a method and not solid fact - perhaps dividing it into "City PDG according to..." sections would work to this end. And yes, of course, instead of listening to reason, one could wait for the support of the authors of the article itself to win out, as what usually happens here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment*I think you're getting confused with what plagiarism is. True that when you plagiarize something, you copy someone else's work. But you also pass it off as your own or don't give credit to the author. This is already false because it is already stated in the article who the author is and where it's from. Furthermore, any list can be treated as my whatever is better than your whatever, so I don't see the basis on your thinking here. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 12:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMy sentiments exactly Elockid. I don't think Promenader is confused at all, but is deliberately obfusticating the issue just to drive his point down that he has a personal issue and disagreement with this list and with PwC. Possibly like the other "deletes", acting out of National Pride and wants the list removed wholesale and condemns PwC.
Promenader, the authors and editors of this article, myself one of them, and which you are not if I were to look at the history of edits, is overwhelmingly in favor at this point for keeping this article, but adding other sources which the others say are available and actually are. You can obfusticate and delude yourself all you want, but Wikipedia is a Democracy, and Democracy it looks like has spoken in favor of keeping the article. One or two more keeps and we can consider this discussion closed as we can place a "disputed sources" tag on the page, as we can get to work adding other sources onto the page and thus creating the balance that information of this sort needs. Eman007 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you can make a coherent and factual list with different sources, of course I would agree to this article's existence. I don't, on the other hand, cater to the "democracy" that is more gang tactics than anything - authours of delusion of course will be the first to defend it. You are not in direct argument with me, but with fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Promenader, in addition to you not understanding what plagiarism is, it doesn't seem that you know how Democracy works as well as how Wikipedia works, because one group of votes outnumbering and overruling another is certainly not "gang tactics". To apparently simplify for you, you set this page up to conduct a consensus to delete this page. Right now the consensus and argument is in heavily favor of keeping the page but by adding different sources. See wikipedia policy for this [Consensus].
As far as you saying"If you can make a coherent and factual list with different sources," we've been saying this the entire time, for the last few days, but you keep constantly arguing against that for some illogical reason. Eman007 (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - I'm not at all arguing against it, I'm saying that making a coherent and uncontested list will be well-neigh impossible for the simple reason that data like this does not exist from official government or census sources, nor does there exist a single system of determining the spread of a city, so the best thing anyone can do is make estimates - and even the estimates here are contested. A list from different sources that use different methods will make an even bigger mess - but go ahead and try if you like, at least the result won't be stealing a single source's work. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - If data such as this does now exist from government sources as you claim, then where did the city of Frankfurt and the German Government get this information from: [20]. Or Paris: [21] and New York [22]? Or the Economist Intelligence Unit [23]?
Secondly, this list nor is PwC's aim is to determine "the spread of a city", but determining the Economic output of some of the world's largest metropolitan areas. No different than doing so for a country. By your faulty logic, we shouldn't take the same data for countries as well.
Further compounding your illogical argument, the United Nations is not a national government, same for the World Bank, or the IMF, but you don't dispute their information.
The more you keep dragging this on, the more inconsistent and illogical you are making yourself. Not to mention silly because you constantly refer to this article being plagiarism and stealing, when this article clearly states where this information is coming from and is properly referenced and cited according to both Wikipedia and Academic standards. None of the other wikipedia users on this page feel the same way about this page either except you. Please read what Plagiarism is before you start accusing and assuming the concept. But then it isn't plagarism any more according to you, the problem then becomes its "single sourced". Eman007 (talk
- Comment - My logic is anything but faulty; you're descending to personal attack rather than listen to it, so change your tone to a more civil one, please. Also, make an effort to format your statements in a more displayable way.
Let's not get into deconstruction and your selective examples (even if the French one you cite is determined by adminstrative regions or economical activity, not demographics): rather stick to the irrefutable fact that there is no single international method of determining city spread. Also keep in mind the irrefutable fact that few countries collect their economic data in the same way, and most all of these collect them along administrative boundries, not demographic ones. Put the two together, and what do you have? Varied data balanced against a lack of data; it is only normal that the result of such a method of estimation differs so greatly across sources.
Yet rather than make an article on "estimations of City PDG" that would have to include several lists ('ranking according to...'), the authors of this article took the easy route of copying a single source and presenting it as if it an article based on sources and fact; you can't cite a source in an article where the article is about the source itself.
The only way to give this article any objectivity and raison d'être is to either a) include the source and subject of the article in the title, or b) make it an article about why different companies are trying to make such a list, and why. THEPROMENADER 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My logic is anything but faulty; you're descending to personal attack rather than listen to it, so change your tone to a more civil one, please. Also, make an effort to format your statements in a more displayable way.
- Comment - I'm not making personal attacks anymore than the others have on this page, so you can stop with your trivial accusations to further obfusticate your argument.
Secondly, you are getting more illogical and inconsistent. You say not to get into "deconstruction and your selective examples", but then you just wrote an entire paragraph devoted to deconstruction and selective examples. This after you claimed that there are no official governmental sources, but then I just proved you wrong that there actually are.
Again, you are seemingly confused to the POINT OF THIS LIST! The point of this list is not determining "determining city spread", but the economic output or GDP of the world's largest metropolitan areas. What you ask: "make it an article about why different companies are trying to make such a list" makes no sense in that regard, because so far, its been only one company that has such data, which is getting its sources from not only governmental sources, but from the UN and OECD. Something PwC makes very clear in the PDF and the webpage where this is from, but you wont read and apparently did not do so in the first convinietly enough.
Again and again, as I and others on this page have said to you continuously, it does not matter who it is from, public or private organization, as long as their data is legitimate, and its properly sourced as it has been on this article. Most of your criticism is purely personal because none of it seems to directly correspond to anything that PwC said on the original PDF or the webpage.
Again, the standard that will be followed on this page will be similar to the GDP and the Standard of Living articles which are exactly types of information. And like those pages, different charts can and will be setup to show the different types of pages. You logic of a "messy page" is farcical, because it does not look messy on those pages at all, but shows the varied means of criteria that different organizations use to come to conclusions when determining GDP.
Again, you are dragging this out as long as possible in order to prove yourself correct, when as mentioned before, you make yourself more and more illogical, incorrect, apparently unknowledgeable as to how to properly use Wikipdia as well as make a proper academic citation. This article is not about "article is about the source itself" but a list of information that was gathered by an corporation for public use. Once again, and please before you post again, get aquainted and clear on what Plagiarism is. You do not have an argument and never had. You are deliberately obfusticating the issue as long you think its possible in your mind in order to hide the fact that you just don't like PwC, this list, or that you are acting out of National Pride.
The user Colonel Warden is 100% correct. You are trying to achieve a standard of perfection that actually goes against Wikipedia rules and conduct. Please read that section to be clear on that concept: WP:IMPERFECT. It is Wikipedia policy to preserve and/or improve articles. Again, please clarify yourself with such policy here WP:PRESERVE, and not wholesale delete articles based on a personal bias, or what limited perception and inaccuracies on what your think plagiarism is. --Eman007 (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - you can accuse and deconstruct all you like (with whatever irrelevant "rules" and adjectives you like), but if still you can't answer to the three illogical fallacies (or sum of two) about this article that I outlined above, you have no argument. Rather than post further selective 'fitting to my opinion' "examples", why not just let protectionism gang tactics win out (as the norm seems to be here)? Btw, Weakopedia's comment below summed things up nicely. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment P.S. - If I can sum things up as well, this article is the work of a single entity that has no clear source to cite but itself. The numbers published here can only be attributed to and found in themselves and their (undisclosed) methods, so go figure. THEPROMENADER 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not making personal attacks anymore than the others have on this page, so you can stop with your trivial accusations to further obfusticate your argument.
- Keep. Interesting. The type of article that people will find on a web search and that will draw them into Wikipedia to browse other subjects. I don't see any copyright issue - mere facts cannot be copyrighted. Yes, there are problems defining city boundaries. Yes, the numbers can be debated. Yes, other sources may give different figures. Let's add them in for balance. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. It's a good article (interesting according to Stumble Upon by the way) and those problems can be fixed without deleting. --Belchman (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do not require perfectionin our articles and it is our editing policy to keep such articles for improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is innacurately named, it is a list of cities by GDP according to PWC. Unless there are reliable sources discussing why the PWC study itself is notable it is more of an advertisement than an encyclopedia reference, and even in that case it would require a different article. Weakopedia (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - does anyone here propose to change the article to a more scholarly and referenceable form, rather than delete it - and if so, in what way? THEPROMENADER 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about we structure the article in a way like List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population where we have multiple columns for different sources. We have one column for PWC, another column for an "official estimates" or "other estimate" column as some have stated to be found and another if another list is found for that source. This way we have multiple sources instead of one source as this seems to be a key issue and editors/readers can have a better idea of what are the current estimates out there. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beatnik Turtle[edit]
- Beatnik Turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As nominator I am not expressing an opinion on this AfD. Does this band meet WP:BAND? It does not appear that it does. Miami33139 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not convinced this band meets WP:BAND, either. I don't believe these sources--[24](tiny blurb focusing mainly on the book), [25](brief album review in a small alternative news weekly), and [26](a few-paragraph spotlight as part of a series of features on contest participants)--are quite good enough to satisfy criteron 1. The band does not appear to meet any of the other criteria. Gongshow Talk 19:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The band received a fair amount of media attention in 2006 for its "Indie Band Survival Guide" and in 2008 when it was released in book form. I've added several references just now. With non-trivial coverage in Billboard and in such newspapers as The News Tribune (that article was also picked up by a newswire service) and the Lincoln Journal Star, there is enough for WP:BAND criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Based on print only references provided by Paul Erik, willing to give benefit of the doubt that these are non-trivial mentions. J04n(talk page) 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Based on the new references, I feel this satisfies WP:BAND. The fact that there is more than one reference and not all at the same time indicates notability and not just news to me. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per good work by Paul.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reefer rock[edit]
- Reefer rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced entry jammed packed with rumours and speculation. The entry is about a location, but says outright that it won't tell you where it is. That's followed by speculation about decriminalizing marijuana in Rhode Island. Google searches turn up nothing. Prod & prod2 declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability, could even be a hoax. Unable to find anything to allow it to pass just about anything! Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it's not a hoax, it's a definite waste of space for WP. It's about as close to notable as Earth is to a quasar. Angryapathy (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utterly silly. Not notable even if everything said in the article was true, and well sourced. Borock (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. If anyone wants to know what Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was like in 2005, check out this article. We used to see articles like this all the time: Truly spread by only word of mouth, Reefer Rock is a rumor mere going around. Still its existence is not proven. The article presents the topic as being so mysterious and unknown that it is unverifiable, which means that Wikipedia can't have an article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with all possible speed, patent nonsense.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this article is not patent nonsense according to Wikipedia's definition. It is meaningful in that it can be reasonably understood; the article is about a rock on Aquidneck Island which is allegedly used by some people as a location to smoke marijuana. However, the article is completely unsourced and consequently unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If not hoax, it lacks WP:RS per original Prod rational placed on article at creation review. Calmer Waters 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if it is a primary source-anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's called original research, it would be even it if weren't anonymous. Being "primary source anonymous" would also make it unverifiable. So you're out of luck both ways. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be stubborn, but i don't understand. Define verifiable. Technically anything you see or read online can be fake. You techically don't have "proof" that it happened unless you yourself are a primary witness of said event. Is it verifiable if multiple people testify to it?
- You can find the answers in the links I gave you above. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Barack Obama visit to China[edit]
- 2009 Barack Obama visit to China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a diary. Wikipedia is not news. This trip is just an ordinary trip that can be covered in other articles. Otherwise we would have the 2009 Barack Obama visit to New York, 2009 Barack Obama visit to the bathroom (severe diarrhea incident), 2009 Barack Obama meeting #5 with Senator ---. President Obama did not make a historic trip to China where he got them to join as a 51th state or like Nixon's trip. If President Obama visited North Korea and kissed their leader and declared Peace in Our Time, this would be different and should be an article. Goldamania (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obama's visit has even more historical significance than the Nixon's visit in many ways, though it is kind of "undercurrent ". Only in 1944, the then President Roosevelt send a telegram to Chiang Kai-shek :Now, when you have not yet placed General Stilwell in command of all forces in China, :s:en:President Roosevelt Message to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. How arrogant, and adament, can Roosevelt be.
- Delete. Original comments hold, resembles a travel journal or news story. Should be pruned and subsumed by an existing article. ... Historical significance cannot yet be determined. History doesn't go that fast, gentlemen. :) When the history has gelled on this, then revisit (if necessary). Kace7 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in 2009, 60 plus years later(in the long Chinese history, 60 years amounts to a few seconds), what did Obama say: China appreciated President Obama's repeated reiteration on the adherence to the one-China policy, the abidance of the three Sino-U.S. Joint Communiqués and his respect for China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Taiwan issue and other matters.:Hu Jintao, Obama Meet the Press . One has to be blind to not see the historical significance. Gone were the days when western leaders coming to China to "order" the Chinese around, buddy. Arilang talk 02:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Quote:If President Obama visited North Korea and kissed their leader and declared Peace in Our Time, this would be different and should be an article. Unquote. Exactly how different is Communist China from North Korea? Not much, really, (1) both are ruled by one, and one only, communist party. (2) both treat USA as enemy NO.1 (3) both governments are still covered in deep secrete. In the political sense, China and North Korea have little differences. Arilang talk 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no secondary sources have been written for this trip yet. We have no way of knowing if it will be historically significant, since the history hasn't been written yet. All we have are news reports, which are, incidentally, boring. This article is journalism, which violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
I have collected a number of Chinese and western main stream media websites articles, and all these articles are talking about the historical significant of the visit, so no secondary sources have been written for this trip yet statement is simply not true, the fact is these secondary sources opinions have not yet being added onto the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China. And we all know that the Obama China visit will go down history, somehow, and I wonder why we have these newly registered users all in a hurry trying to delete it?
- [http://www.nownews.com/2009/11/26/142-2538097.htm 奧巴馬靠攏中國,馬英九大陸政策緊貼?
(2009/11/26 00:28)]
- 洛杉磯時報社論:奧巴馬承認中國實力是正確之舉
- 網民:奧巴馬在中共的舞臺上表演
- 奧巴馬上海座談 凸顯中國緊密控制
- [http://news.singtao.ca/calgary/2009-11-20/world1258704568d2162098.html
奧巴馬在中國留下的問題較他回答的更多 ]
- Chinese Censors Block Obama's Call to Free the Web
- Obama Wades Into Internet Censorship in China Address
- Is President Obama Abandoning Taiwan?
- Have they contributed anythings
- User: Goldamania
- User:Glittering Pillars
- User:Kace7
The above three users sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be making comment on this article. Arilang talk 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is incorrect. All three of the editors have other contributions unrelated to this article and its AfD, as can be seen from looking at their contribution pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Glittering Pillars (talk · contribs) has proposed 6 articles for deletion and !voted delete on 4 other AfD discussions in an editing history of just 43 edits. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to be rude, but there seesm to be something going on here. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who cares? Maybe User:Glittering Pillars was using Wikipedia before as an unregistered anonymous user but registered an account because they wanted to participate in AfD. The question is whether their arguments in favor of deletion are good arguments, not how long they have been registered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although Glittering Pillars (talk · contribs) has proposed 6 articles for deletion and !voted delete on 4 other AfD discussions in an editing history of just 43 edits. Astronaut (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, strong keep - per WP:OUTCOMES; WP:N: this is one of those obviously notable Presidential trips. FWIW, about the newbies: Goldmania has been active only since September and has no real talk or user pages; Glittering Pillars has no user or talk pages and only registered November 30; Kace7 has no user or talk pages, but has been active on and off since February 2008. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your keep arguments don't really trump WP:NOT#NEWS. "Outcomes" is just an informational page, and "Notability" is a guideline. "Not" is policy. Glittering Pillars (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, for a law teacher, your argument to keep is awfully conclusory. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:N#TEMP I am not sure why this particular trip, especially one part, deserves its own wikipeida article. If this trip represents such a fundamental change in Sino-American relations, it should merged with that article. Otherwise, there is no reason to think Obama said and did exactly what previous presidents since the Nixon administration have said and done while visiting China. The more controlled aspects of the visit could just as easily be chalked up to personality and style differences between Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin. Does Obama bowing to the Japanese emperor also reflect a difference in policy, or just a difference in style? Does that episode deserve its own page as well? Does this episode reflect a fundamental change like the A New Beginning speech in Cairo did? XinJeisan (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Strong Keep: It was a very notable first trip by President Obama, the most powerful man on the planet to China, a growing economic superpower who is becoming increasingly important to US domestic and foreign policy.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep will clearly be an historical event , and thus passes NOT NEWS, As someone said above, NOT is a policy,. It needs to be interpreted with some judgment. some ofthe delete arguments amount to IDIDNTTHINKMUCHOFHISVISIT. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG writes "*Keep will clearly be an historical event". If so, this article can be written later when it actually becomes a historical event. The word "will" shows that it is not yet a historical event.
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, this's just like yesterday news. Qajar (talk) 05:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not an encyclopedic article. Just another trip report. We don't have trip reports for the United Nations head.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs) 00:37, December 1, 2009
- Comment: If all is lost, merge with Sino-American relations. There is no reason that the entire article should be shredded out of existence. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 10:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I agree not every trip Obama makes should have its own article, but deleting it shouldnt be an option either. I say we should have a conglomerate article about Obama's foreign trips as president with this being one of the sections. Obviously it will be a work in progress.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere - Sino-American relations, East Asian foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration, etc. I disagree with Bearian that this is "one of those obviously notable Presidential trips". The 1972 Nixon visit to China, yes - even books have been written on that one. But I don't see what makes this one more notable than the 2005 George W. Bush visit to China or the 1998 Bill Clinton visit to China, or than the 2009 Barack Obama visit to the United Kingdom. Presidential visits are important but also routine, and few are of that lasting an importance to warrant separate articles. That they are well-covered in the media is also no automatic reason for an article: everything US Presidents do is covered in depth by the dozens of reporters who follow him around everywhere; verifiability does not always amount to notability. - Biruitorul Talk 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep* Very significant, many other less visits have articles on wikipedia ,why not this one?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely false. Aside from 1972 Nixon visit to China, Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia, Ngô Đình Diệm presidential visit to the United States and Pope John Paul II 1983 visit to Nicaragua (all of which have been shown to be significant by history, as opposed to the short burst of news coverage typical for all official actions of US Presidents), can you name any other individual visits abroad by heads of state that have articles here? - Biruitorul Talk 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. See Category:China – United States relations. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's try this again. Other than those four (and this one), can you name any other individual visits abroad by heads of state that have articles here? - Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. See Category:China – United States relations. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete* This was not a momentous event, it was one of many visits Obama made. The text can always be merged with US-China foreign policy pages. John Smith's (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the important stuff to Sino-American relations or some such; this was a pretty important event and attracted lots of attention. On the other hand, it doesn't need its own standalone article and some things (like the timeline) are not important; what matters is the diplomatic and policy implications/consequences. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but can merge a few sentences into other articles. Just another presidential trip, albeit by a very popular man. Inmate 5317 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - People who propose deletions need to understand that most of these visits do not have immediate impact until years later. The Nixon visit was not declared "important" or "unimportant" the next day. Why should this one be? Whether Clinton's visit has an article or not is irrelevant to the discussion. It just means the editors haven't made one yet. Benjwong (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nixon's visit wasn't declared important the next day, it was declared so before he even arrived. This is from the Feb 21, 1972 issue of Time Magazine: "A year ago, the very idea that Nixon, or any other U.S. Chief Executive, would visit China on a good-will mission would have seemed absurd. But not only the mountain goddess is startled these days by how the world has changed." [27] Obama's trip to Beijing was routine and expected. Nor were these plans (from the same Time Magazine article). "The ceremonial portions of the seven-day visit will be televised live by satellite to a worldwide audience that may match or exceed the estimated 600 million who saw man's first steps on the moon." I think it is difficult to compare Obama's or Clinton's visit to China, or, really, any American president's visit to China, or any foreign country, to Nixon's visit to China in 1972 XinJeisan (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was a historic trip. Per Arilang1234's comments, it has received extensive,non-trivial media coverage worldwide. I don't agree that this can be viewed as a routine or non-notable trip. In the entire history of these two countries, there have been only seven trips made by sitting U.S. Presidents to China. See this history of such trips Given the rarity of such trips and the preeminent role played by these two countries in the global economy, such a visit is inherently notable, IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, I agree that every state visit by a sitting President doesn't warrant an article. We don't need separate articles for every U.S. Presidential trip. In this case, it's the combination of (a) the rarity of U.S. Presidential visits to China (7 in history) and (b) the huge global influence of these two nations, that persuades me that a separate article is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is against keeping, then I would at a minimum suggest the creation of an article on United States presidential visits to China. Similar articles exist for United States presidential visits to Mexico, United States presidential visits to Canada, and United States presidential visits to Africa. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we could move the page to United States presidential visits to China and then expand the other sections. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every visit like this receives extensive media coverage. For example, look at the Dalai Lama's trip to the US a couple months ago; there was all sorts of uproar about it (specifically, about who did and did not chat with him). This amount of coverage for US-related diplomatics is not that unusual. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are also the following lists already existant:List of international trips made by the President of the United States, which has a summary of the trip to China,List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama, which also has a summary of the trip to China. There is also United States presidential visits to United Kingdom. I'm not so much of a deletionist to think all these should be deleted. But, if you are going to make a new article, maybe United States Presidential Visits to Asia would be better. Although, I think all these presidental visit lists are quite well covered in the Lists of international trips article. XinJeisan (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every visit like this receives extensive media coverage. For example, look at the Dalai Lama's trip to the US a couple months ago; there was all sorts of uproar about it (specifically, about who did and did not chat with him). This amount of coverage for US-related diplomatics is not that unusual. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we could move the page to United States presidential visits to China and then expand the other sections. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus is against keeping, then I would at a minimum suggest the creation of an article on United States presidential visits to China. Similar articles exist for United States presidential visits to Mexico, United States presidential visits to Canada, and United States presidential visits to Africa. Cbl62 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, I agree that every state visit by a sitting President doesn't warrant an article. We don't need separate articles for every U.S. Presidential trip. In this case, it's the combination of (a) the rarity of U.S. Presidential visits to China (7 in history) and (b) the huge global influence of these two nations, that persuades me that a separate article is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per XinJeisan, above; emphasis on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing that this trip did differently than any other presidential visit since Nixon: reiterate the status quo. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the original comments. Even if this is an historic trip, my guess is that it will be relegated to footnotes or a cursory mention in history. Nothing great or path-breaking has been conducted. The US policy was more or less know before the trip itself.--Anish (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This and similar comments make a good point: the trip didn't really, as far as we know, produce any important policy stances or changes. The closest thing is maybe that Barack Obama tried to emphasize more cooperation and less "America should be afraid of China", but who was really afraid anyway, other than Bush wingnuts? All in all, the trip was more rhetoric than change—the rhetoric does evidence that the administration's attitude towards the PRC is different than Bush's was, but the trip itself isn't what produced that change. And most of the rhetoric was fairly conservative ("We think you're doing a great job! try to take care of human rights a little better but overall just a great job!"). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Anish's comments set the bar too high. Under our established standards, an event doesn't have to be a "path-breaking" event. To the contrary, it simply has to be "notable." Anish appears to concede it's "an historic trip," and that ought to be enough. Requiring it to be a "great or path-breaking" historic event (Anish's proposed standard) inserts far too much subjectivity into the process, in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This and similar comments make a good point: the trip didn't really, as far as we know, produce any important policy stances or changes. The closest thing is maybe that Barack Obama tried to emphasize more cooperation and less "America should be afraid of China", but who was really afraid anyway, other than Bush wingnuts? All in all, the trip was more rhetoric than change—the rhetoric does evidence that the administration's attitude towards the PRC is different than Bush's was, but the trip itself isn't what produced that change. And most of the rhetoric was fairly conservative ("We think you're doing a great job! try to take care of human rights a little better but overall just a great job!"). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously notable, major event given lots of press coverage across the world. Everyking (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This visit yielded no significant outcome or significant effect on the US-China relation, so I think that it's just like another visit and fails WP:EVENT. However, if someone write the article 2009 Barack Obama visits to Asia, I think we can merge this article into it.--AM (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have added a "Reactions" section, so the article has a certain political and historical context, and isn't just a diary. I think people are too busy shouting at each other rather than contributing content. Can't we at least see how good the article can get before we decide on whether to delete it? Lampman (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Look to me it doesn't have any significant change in the relationship between two countries. 207.233.70.79 (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. He doesn't seem to have enough notability. I'm going to redirect to Pay Day (board game) after deletion as that's the best known game he created Fences&Windows 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul J. Gruen[edit]
- Paul J. Gruen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this board game inventor. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- My search reveals that this person did exist per [28], [29]. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Of course he did exist. It's about notability. Do you think that everyone that exists or did exist should have an article? Those sources are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna have to delete here. Unless we can findn sources of notability, there's nothing here but a list of games he has credit on. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I've go to hand it to you Joe Chill, I definitly jumped the gun on this the sources are not adequate to justify an article. WP:N is not met by the sources I have already provided so for the time being I retract to neutral. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep assuming the facts can be verified, he did not invent major board games, but is barely notable. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:BIO. Only 3 Google hits = notability is not satisfied ArcAngel (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Island of Doctor Agor[edit]
- The Island of Doctor Agor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable movie. — Dædαlus Contribs 09:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Noted in several sources as the first film of director Tim Burton, it was shot when he was only 13. The assertion of notability in it being one of Burton's first was quite easy to verify in reliable sources. Though itself but a "student film", its historical signifcance is in the life of a youngster who would later become an award-winning director. At the very least, it might be considered for merging with the director's article, but deleted? Such does not improve the project when there are many alternatives. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable because of the two books it was listed in, and the fact it was the first film by a very notable person in the film industry. Dream Focus 09:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not sure what exactly the nominator means by his rationale of "non-notable movie". Per the references provided by MichaelQSchmidt, the film passes WP:GNG so the subject of the article, in this case the film, is notable. If the nominator is suggesting that the film fails WP:NOTFILM, that is a moot point because GNG trumps NOTFILM every day of the week. Properly sourced and notable, this article is a benefit to the project. And, surprise surprise, great job by MichealQ again. How predictable :) Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chic Management[edit]
- Chic Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability since May, still no substantial third-party reliable sources. ~YellowFives 16:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nomination
ContinueWithCaution (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete it fails WP:N. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inmate 5317 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ethan Cutkosky[edit]
- Ethan Cutkosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ENT. only really known for 1 role. [31]. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Like nominator says, only 1 real role. Two other roles are uncredited or "Neighborhood Boy". Hardly notable. Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, as this youngster gets press even if only 10 [32]. Time to fix, not delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL, we can't pre empt nor predict future roles or notability. of course we can recreate if circumstances change. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My keep opinion is based upon his current meeting of WP:GNG. I am allowed the reasonable assumption that he will get more, but that was not the basis of my keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article subject does not meet WP:ENT at this time. The article can be included in the future if and when he takes on additional substantial roles in tv/film/theatre, or otherwise garners enough independent coverage to meet the general notability guideline.--Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, he fails WP:ENT. But WP:ENT does not trump the WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you confirm how you believe he meets even the general guidelines? I tried to find additional sources that gave him significant coverage so that I could add them to the article and !vote keep, but I came up empty handed, hence the delete !vote. Of the 29 google news hits (the majority of which are duplicates of the same syndicated review), the only coverage is a passing mention to the individual as a cast member of The Unborn. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:ENT and failing WP:GNG. Linking to Google News search results without actually examining the articles themselves provides absolutely no information as to what the coverage represents. If one actually goes to the articles found in the search, one would find that Ethan Cutkosky is mentioned as playing a role in the film. Period. Full stop. There is no significant coverage to establish any notability, general or as per our entertainer guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my comments. Likely much better to have all child actors grow up and get more roles and more press. And in further consideration of the possible legal concerns when writing about minor children, perhaps editors might wish to consider a rewrite of WP:BLP to prevent articles about minor children from being added to the pages of Wikipedia in the first place? I have seen more and more articles about child actors who are in some popular show who themselves may or may not have received coverage for their work. But even were notability guidelines to be met, in the long run the project is better safe than sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have posed this question at WP:BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kuo Yuan[edit]
- Kuo Yuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable and no references can be found. Grim23★ 18:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (and Rescue). The only other source, besides the one cited in the article, I could find in a brief flurry of web-trawling just now was this blog post (you have to scroll down through the entries to find the Kuo Yuan mention). A problem with defunct restaurants, especially those that (as apparently is the case here) died before the internet age, is finding reliable sources. It requires old-fashioned research, as me old dad used to do in the days of newspaper journalism in the last century: you have to go somewhere to look into it and you can't just get it through your monitor and keyboard. Assuming the one source is valid, then this restaurant, as part of a new wave of Chinese cuisine in London, should be notable. As such, it sounds like it's worth keeping (and rescuing). Geoff Say something! 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyright violation. Polarpanda (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It was noted in Fielding's Europe as "Kuo Yuan (259 High Road, Willesden Green, NW10) strikes us as one of the best Peking-style contenders in Londontown", and it got an entry in Egon Ronay's guide in 1971, and Fodor's in 1979. Along with Jay Rayner's claims for it,[33] it might be worth keeping. Fences&Windows 21:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it appears to be in need of a copy edit, but the claims of its importance to British-Chinese cuisine appear to be genuine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apphone[edit]
- Apphone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A neoligism too far. Google appears to show results for this word, but the results list is not about the topic, except for the website of a chinese company. Adequately covered under smartphone, but I am not suggesting a redirect, or I'd have done that myself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor neologism ~YellowFives 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexandra Hills, Queensland#Education. I really don't see anything to merge there, but if someone discovers something feel free to merge. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilliard state school[edit]
- Hilliard state school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Contest was: "rm PROD, govt schools do not have to meet a notability criteria". Correct me if I am wrong, but the notability criteria apply to all styles of articles. This school seems to lack notability, quick search gives a school facebook, "ratemyteachers" result, mentions in a couple of blogs, and a few Wikipedia links which end up here. Taelus (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Alexandra Hills, Queensland#Education, leave redirect behind. tedder (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Tedder, and hopefully, we won't have someone say "AfD is not the place to discuss merger"; AfD is the place where we discuss all alternatives. Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or at least make reference to in the article as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:SCHOOL was a failed proposal, thus there is no specific criteria of "notability" in regards to schools. It is also difficult to determine whether or not a school is notable. Schools rarely make it on third party publications unless there is a major incident. Most of the time, the only source you can find is the school website and perhaps a link on a directory list. -Reconsider! 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while WP:SCHOOL hasn't become policy, the common deletion outcome for schools may still be informative to you. tedder (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The common outcomes are somewhat arbitrary then, seeing that it has no underlying basis. -Reconsider! 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, I regularly find references to schools in a range of third party publications - including local authority websites, local press etc... It's far beyond their own website generally. This school seems to have little or no notability beyond it being a primary school unless that notability can be demonstrated Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no specific criteria of inclusion in relation to schools, then it is redundant to suggest that the article must be subjected to some 'notability' measure. -Reconsider! 09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aside from the generally applied notability for schools, there is the general demand for content on wikipedia to be notable - WP:GNG. I don't see that in this case just yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure what the problem is. The general outcomes aren't arbitrary. Put simply, the outcome is that high schools are granted an exception to the rule of having to prove widespread notability. Other schools aren't granted that exception and must prove notability in the usual way. There are various rationales, the main ones being that the high school confers the earliest recognized certification of education within a community (the diploma or certificate of graduation) and that the high school is often the highest level educational institution within a town, neighborhood, etc. Lower level schools may be referred to in other articles, such as about a school district or a community, but aren't entitled to a separate article of their own as a matter of right. Those schools can still demonstrate notability, but aren't given a free pass. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aside from the generally applied notability for schools, there is the general demand for content on wikipedia to be notable - WP:GNG. I don't see that in this case just yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no specific criteria of inclusion in relation to schools, then it is redundant to suggest that the article must be subjected to some 'notability' measure. -Reconsider! 09:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Alexandra Hills, Queensland#Education is the normal and very fine action. TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. WP:OUTCOMES might suggest we "keep" this but seeing as this is just a single sentence, merging seems to be the obvious choice here. JBsupreme (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - There is nothing in this article to merge. — ækTalk 07:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Africonomist[edit]
- The Africonomist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a new African financial newsletter, input by TheAfriconomist (talk · contribs). I have spamusernameblocked the author, but declined a db-corp speedy as possibly notable; however searches find little except its own website - no independent comment from reliable sources. Not yet notable, though it may become so one day. JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probably fails WP:COMPANY. It needs reliable sources to improve the article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this newsletter. Joe Chill (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability, which is what I expected since the first edition was in Feb 2009 according to the article. CronopioFlotante (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable, no reliable sources. — ækTalk 07:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of characters in anime and manga who can fly[edit]
- List of characters in anime and manga who can fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List is overly broad in scope with no value and lacks context. Fails WP:SALAT. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see why we need lists like this. It has no substantial content. Specs112 (Talk!) 13:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per consensus above.--Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this stays, we should make a list for List of soap opera characters who have had romantic relationships. Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I believe that this is a list and so should be deleted, if at all, under WP:MFD. -- allen四names 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:LIST lists are article entries, and due to this it is standard convention to list them AfD instead of MfD. ThemFromSpace 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:LIST is what you should be looking at. It list what types of list are acceptable. "An Index of articles page presents an alphabetical list of articles related to the subject of the index." It meets those requirements. This is an aid to navigation, it listing blue links, helping people find something relevant in other articles. Dream Focus 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't give any indication of why it is relevant, clever & encyclopedic to have a such list. Having the sole merit to be informative isn't enough. People can write List of characters in anime and manga who can't swim or List of characters in anime and manga who crossdress or List of characters in anime and manga without nose using the same argument. Last point i feel very dubious that people will look intuitively for a such list. I doubt that people would use either "anime character fly" or "manga character fly" in wikipedia search box as key words. --KrebMarkt 18:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is original research; the article's author watched some anime, read some manga and made a list of those characters who could fly, which is indiscriminate since there was no secondary sources used to confirm that all flying characters were found. Since the author combined two different media, the list is extra-indiscriminate. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utterly useless. Doceirias (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it really does not deserve to be a stand-alone page, I just copied and pasted it to List of fictional characters who can fly#In anime and manga (with some modifications). The information can be found there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. Extremepro (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as Lord Sesshomaru has already started the merge and so should be allowed to complete it. -- allen四names 19:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copying and pasting takes only a few seconds. Is the information best suited there, or in an article by itself? Would it make the other article grow too long? Do all the things listed meet the requirements for this other list, being able to fly on their own, without being part bird or a species that does it already, or using any magical or technological items? A merge discussion can be had elsewhere though. This meets all requirements for a List article, so it should be kept. Most of those against it simply don't like it, which is not a valid reason to delete something. Dream Focus 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too broad of a topic per WP:SALAT which produces an indiscriminate list without any notable connection between the entities. I would also support a deletion of the even more indiscriminate list of which this was merged. ThemFromSpace 22:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A closing administrator may decline to delete this list because of attribution concerns. -- allen四names 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss whether the already carried out should be supported--it does make sense to me. But there is no policy reason to delete: A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. If the works involved have articles and the characters are non-trivial, that's sufficient to be discriminating. indiscriminate ≠ minor. Since the relevant information is the role in a fiction, the fiction itself is the preferred source. Myself, I couldn't care less about the subject. It is in any case correct that unless we are to merge histories, which is an immense amount of trouble, the page will need to be kept as a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete" wikipedia is not an anime repository. This is just a list of character that adds nothing to the encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodore Therone (talk • contribs) 13:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny Lee[edit]
- Kenny Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits of substance and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete, he can be found here - www.vmusic.com.au/PresenterSearch2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.235.18 (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.vmusic.com.au/#/PresenterSearch2009/Candidates/8/Kenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.235.18 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find in-depth coverage for this person. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Gongshow Talk 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - got knocked out of a reality show competition and has had no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1900 Pacific Avenue[edit]
- 1900 Pacific Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-Noticable and no sources for the article. Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 11:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All the google hits for this proposed building are from unreliable sources. No reliable refs mention this. Hence, fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and lack of this being a notable future building. Compare with Freedom Tower or some sports stadiums for world-famous teams, which tend to be notable from the day that ground-breaking is announced. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, unclear when or if construction will start. Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
X-Moto[edit]
- X-Moto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been without third-party references or assertion of notability for a year now. I can't find any reviews or features about this game. Marasmusine (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable - Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 14:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant covereage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a vague recollection that there was a deletion discussion before, but I am not sure. Maybe it is best to start a section in Elasto Mania on clones (which would mention this and other games such as Bike or Die), and redirect this article there. I guess this counts as a merge and redirect of sorts. Eldar (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider that, but had trouble finding reliable, independent verification for this and BoD. If such sources can be found (which would need to state that they are clones), I have no objection to a section in the Elasto Mania article. Marasmusine (talk) 11:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The high crusade (band)[edit]
- The high crusade (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SCRABBLE, they are not notable at the current time regardless of what may occur in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Taelus (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The best I could dig up was a brief mention here. I can not find enough in-depth coverage for the band to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 05:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. While i mostly agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is a clear consensus to keep. Kevin (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code[edit]
- Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination, prod was contested, user re-adding prod template to article suggesting desire for more discussion. Reason provided was "This page may be inappropriate for an encyclopedia, the article is clearly biased and inflamatory, and in no way adds value to the original article. There are few other literary works that have received such treatment and this one should not either. This article is just a vehicle for one specific point of view to "debunk" the original book."
Prod was contested with reason: "Page split from main article giving it notability, bias is not a reason for deletion, but is a reason for clean-up. No prejudice for an AfD as long as relevant parties are notified" Taelus (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up is my personal view as I contested the PROD. The article seems to be a valid split from the main article, although it does need some attention to improve it to meet our quality standards. --Taelus (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I will admit I have just started the book and respect it as solely a work of fiction, the reason this article needs to be deleted has nothing to do with the book, but with it's validity as an article on wikipedia. I have checked the articles for several major literary works, some controversial, some not: Mein Kampf, Dante's Inferno, Lolita, War and Peace, Moby Dick, The Twilight Series, and none of them have a separate "criticism" "inaccuracies" or "controversy" page, and I do not seem why, in the big picture, a much less notable novel is deserving of such a page. Furthermore, the article was clearly written with a clear agenda in mind and is not merely biased, but is designed to prove a point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmaniora (talk • contribs) 10:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree with Bmaniora - we have a lot of criticism/controversy articles, and the fact other articles lack them doesn't mean an unrelated article should not have one. Highly detailed/referenced, and meets all requirements. Aiken ♫ 11:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These sorts of pages are often suspect, being a soapbox for people who disagree with something. However, in this case, there is substantial coverage of this precise topic. It could exist as a standalone article, let alone as a branch from the article of the book. I could perhaps see a concern regarding the article title, but that is a discussion to be had elsewhere. Quantpole (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most of this article is palpably unsourced original research. To begin with, so far as I can see, there is no sourcing/referencing to the novel itself, which is absolutely fundamental for an article which supposedly cites inaccuracies in the novel. Many of the claims of what is "accurate" are unsourced, and others appear to be hypothetical/speculative/unfounded. For example, the article claims that the claim of a New York to Rome flight passing over Portugal is inaccurate, but cites only a page which at best describes typical flight paths; there is nothing to indicate that such flights cannot pass over Portugal, or have never passed over Portugal. There are other claims that the book is inaccurate because characters, events whatever, do not reflect what is "typical". This makes no sense; one might as well argue that a murder mystery is inaccurate because a class of people to which the murderer belongs typically do not commit murder. Since a central premise of the novel is that accurate religious history has been suppressed, it makes little sense to claim that the religious history presented in this work of fiction does not line up with conventional versions. What next? An article on "Inaccuracies in Jurassic Park" with content like "There are no dinosaurs alive today"? "Inaccuracies in Harry Potter" beginning with "There are no real wizards." "Inaccuracies in Superman" beginning with "Men cn't fly" and "There is no planet Krypton." There may be a place in Wikipedia for an article on criticisms of the novel, based in some part on reliable secondary sources which discuss supposed inaccuracies, but this one is certainly not that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If by "sourcing to the novel" you mean footnoting specific claims, this would be almost pointless because the book exists in numerous editions each of which is paginated differently. This should not be an issue as long as the claims made are not in dispute. This article should be reverted to its original name (Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code). The numerous notable books that have been written on this have been criticisms of assertions made in the novel about history or religion, and, to a lesser extent, the interpretation of art. These are the notable issues. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous. Just because a book has multiple editions is no excuse for not supplying references to an easily accessible version, like the primary trade hardcover. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If by "sourcing to the novel" you mean footnoting specific claims, this would be almost pointless because the book exists in numerous editions each of which is paginated differently. This should not be an issue as long as the claims made are not in dispute. This article should be reverted to its original name (Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code). The numerous notable books that have been written on this have been criticisms of assertions made in the novel about history or religion, and, to a lesser extent, the interpretation of art. These are the notable issues. Paul B (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing ridiculous about it. Why don't you buy the "primary trade hardcover" if it's so easy and take the trouble to fix all pagination issues? And why should we privilege a US edition over other English language editions that would be a chore to obtain outside the US? Seriously, there is no way we can keep consistent page references unless one editor has some sort of master copy and changes all page references to it. Even then it will be useless in practice to many or most readers. Referring to specific chapters would be more valuable. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was "easy". I said the primary trade editon was "easily accessible," which is different. WP:V requires that anyone should be able to check the sources to verify that material in a Wikipedia article has already been published by a reliable source, as required by this policy. It's not acceptable to say the equivalent of "read the book, it's in there somewhere." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly agree with Paul. Since page numbers vary, introducing them is not feasible unless somebody does it in one go (using whatever edition he pleases). But since an article is bound to progress after that and the one doing the pagination effort cannot be expected to do it again and again. One could do references to the individual chapters that do not change from edition to edition. However, this is neither an urgent problem nor is it one that has any bearing whatsoever on this AfD. And if the article should be renamed "Criticism ..." it is not needed either, as the criticism would have to be sourced to the critics, not to the novel. Str1977 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing ridiculous about it. Why don't you buy the "primary trade hardcover" if it's so easy and take the trouble to fix all pagination issues? And why should we privilege a US edition over other English language editions that would be a chore to obtain outside the US? Seriously, there is no way we can keep consistent page references unless one editor has some sort of master copy and changes all page references to it. Even then it will be useless in practice to many or most readers. Referring to specific chapters would be more valuable. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up. The DaVinci Code cannot be fairly compared to Moby Dick or Jurassic Park. It contains some very controversial historical theories, many of which have been seriously put forward before. Controversy is legitimate and notable. ... But, article is overlong and descends to irrelevant nit-picking on many smaller points. ... Lot's of clean-up :) Kace7 (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up. This article started as a section of the main DVC article. It was made into a separate article because it was taking over the original. I think a secondary reason was that fans of the novel disliked so many criticisms. Its original title was "Criticisms of the Da Vinci Code". It was changed without any real consensus relatively recently. The former title legitimated literary criticism and debate, but the present title tends to produce a pedantic list of petty errors, when really it should concentrate on the significant issues, which are its claims about religion and its interpretations of art works. Paul B (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Multiple academic articles have been written about this precise topic. There are plenty of reliable sources, and the topic is clearly notable. --Elonka 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Elonka. --John (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up and move back to "Criticism", as Paul B said - "it should concentrate on the significant issues, which are its claims about religion and its interpretations of art works". Uthanc (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - any problems that article might have can be solved by editing it. The topic is notable and hence the AfD frivolous. Str1977 (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - several books were written on this topic. Much of the content could, potentially, be merged elsewhere, possibly, into the articles most relevant to those particular controversies, but I'm not sure that all would fit elsewhere, particularly the lawsuit matter, and that is probably sufficient cause to keep the article. It could use work, but all articles could. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This novel is controversial, and the controversy, if kept in the article, is undue weight. This article is a useful source of critical analysis. Toss out any OR, keep sourced stuff. --StaniStani 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to, perhaps Criticisms of The Da Vinci Code. The book is a work of fiction, we should not expect it to contain verifiable fact. There is no article Inaccuracies in the Harry Potter series, for example. in fact there seem to be no other articles among the 3-million-plus entitled Inaccuracies in ...'. But there is Religious debates over the Harry Potter series and a similar title should work here. Sussexonian (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a piece of fiction. How is listing the inaccuracies in a piece of fiction even remotely notable? How about Inaccuracies in Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, or maybe Inaccuracies in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace? The fact that some people think The DaVinci Code is real doesn't make its inaccuracies notable.--Blargh29 (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clean up, and move back to previous name, for the reasons given by Elonka and Paul Barlow. A quick search at Amazon.com for "Criticism of The da Vinci Code" turns up at least a dozen books published on the topic, so a lack of notability isn't an issue. -Sketchmoose (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable Vartanza (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Campagnola[edit]
- Robert Campagnola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of and by User:Robcamp108. Both in conflic of interest and not notable BLP and completely unsourced. Related articles that were supporting notability Sri Hari Discography RASA Discography and BLISS Discography were deleted as not notable, being an ex-Iskcon leader does not justify inclusion under WP:BLP criteria. Wikidas© 10:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable, vanity article. Wikidas© 10:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He received quite a lot of coverage in independent sources (in this book the whole chapter is dedicated to him), he is undoubtedly notable. The article needs to be rewritten though, and RS should be provided. Articles Sri Hari Discography RASA Discography and BLISS Discography had nothing to do with his notability. His notability stems from him being one of the most prominent leaders of the Hare Krishna movement for many years.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- this book is not a source that qualifies to be a RS in wikipedia, and certainly not in English WP. No reviews as well. If no sources that are proper and reliable to support notability or former notability, the article is to be deleted. Wikidas© 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the above mentioned book is most certainly an independent source. Plus, if you would take a time and search for coverage in academic sources, you would find enough material to justify a keep. This nomination is on par with your previous nomination of Kirtanananda Swami.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- this book is not a source that qualifies to be a RS in wikipedia, and certainly not in English WP. No reviews as well. If no sources that are proper and reliable to support notability or former notability, the article is to be deleted. Wikidas© 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per above.--Pookeo9 Talk If you need anything 11:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument that sources exist, but I can not show it is not an argument at all. If there were sources that supported the notability AND were reliable, that would have been a differnt thing. Wikidas© 13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some coverage in RS I was able to find: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] Conclusion: the subject of the article is covered in multiple RS, most of them in Russian and German (mostly he was preaching in Russia and German speaking countries). --Gaura79 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And more coverage. This is an exerpt from a book on Vaishnavism in Russia, written by a well-known Russian scholar (The preview of the book is not available online).
- Well, some coverage in RS I was able to find: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] Conclusion: the subject of the article is covered in multiple RS, most of them in Russian and German (mostly he was preaching in Russia and German speaking countries). --Gaura79 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An argument that sources exist, but I can not show it is not an argument at all. If there were sources that supported the notability AND were reliable, that would have been a differnt thing. Wikidas© 13:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.2.3. Третий период - «проверки на духовную зрелость» (1998-1999). В 1998 году российские вайшнавы испытали серьезный кризис. Непосредственным поводом, его спровоцировавшим, стал уход из Международного общества сознания Кришны одного из учеников Шрилы Прабхупады - Харикеши Свами Шри Вишнупада. Он был председателем коллегиального руководящего органа Международного общества сознания Кришны – Всемирного руководящего совета (Governing Body Commission, сокращенно GBC, или Джи Би Си), имел множество учеников (по некоторым оценкам, до 3 тыс. человек, в том числе в России, особенно в Санкт-Петербурге и Москве). Непосредственно перед уходом из МОСК Вишнупад тяжело болел и даже, по свидетельству некоторых его учеников, пережил состояние клинической смерти. Вернувшись к жизни, Харикеша Свами выступил с критикой МОСК и особенно его отношения к семье и браку. Своим ученикам он посоветовал самим решать, оставаться им в Обществе сознания Кришны или выйти из него. В декабре 1998 года 50-летний Харикеша Свами женился на шведской кришнаитке русского происхождения. Приглашенные на свадьбу наиболее верные ученики выслушали его подробное мнение о философии и истории МОСК. «Все религиозные организации неизбежно деградировали», - подвел итог Вишнупад. Видеозапись этой беседы разошлась среди российских вайшнавов и «перевернула» сознание довольно многих учеников Харикеши Свами. Некоторые из них вышли из ОСК, другие остались, но были в значительной степени дезориентированы. Кризис 1998 года приобрел в России более значительные масштабы, нежели в Международном обществе сознания Кришны, так как в нашей стране было немало учеников Харикеша Свами (он, в числе других учеников Шрилы Прабхупады, начал посещать территорию СССР еще в конце 70-х годов XX века). Как отмечает вице-президент ЦОСКР Радха Дамодар прабху, на смену массовому энтузиазму, характерному для предшествующего периода, в 1998 году пришла «депрессия», затем «на протяжении нескольких лет наблюдались неуверенность, пассивность и неустойчивость». Суть данного периода истории Общества сознания Кришны в России заключалась в том, что он стал для вайшнавов «проверкой на духовную зрелость». Сейчас, спустя почти 10 лет, кризис практически преодолен. Большинство учеников Харикеша Свами приняли реинициацию (то есть инициацию от других духовных учителей) или получают духовную поддержку от духовных учителей в рамках ОСК. Взгляды и подходы самого Харикеша Свами также претерпели значительную эволюцию, он не выступает более с критикой МОСК (хотя его взгляды отличаются от подходов ОСК по ряду вопросов), высказывает уважительную позицию в отношении Шрилы Прабхупады. Харикеша Свами проживает на территории одной из общин МОСК в США, посещает храмы ОСК, общается с преданными.
As you can see, the coverage is significant.--Gaura79 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is from another article. "Xарикеша Свамu" ? -- Certainly does not belong to the WP in english. You can not even compare him with Kirtanananda Swami by the ammount sources that can be found. If you want use the foreign sources on the local wikipedia pages, but they are not RS for wikipedia in English. None of them claim that he is notable for inclusion according to the policy. Is there any mention of Robert Campagnola ANYWHERE in any reliable sources? Wikidas© 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a quote from the book I mentioned above. It perfectly qualifies as RS in any Wikipedia. Two pages of material devoted to Robert Campagnola in a publication by a Russian scholar. Plus the other book I mentioned in the begining of our discussion, which is authored by Alexander Dvorkin, the most prominent Anticult activist in modern Russia. He dedicated to Robert Campagnola (aka Harikesa Swami) a whole chapter in his book.--Gaura79 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is from another article. "Xарикеша Свамu" ? -- Certainly does not belong to the WP in english. You can not even compare him with Kirtanananda Swami by the ammount sources that can be found. If you want use the foreign sources on the local wikipedia pages, but they are not RS for wikipedia in English. None of them claim that he is notable for inclusion according to the policy. Is there any mention of Robert Campagnola ANYWHERE in any reliable sources? Wikidas© 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Foreign language reliable sources are still reliable.Pectoretalk 19:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for the nominator. It's very unclear to me at this stage of the discussion what the current basis is for deletion. Is it that the sources offered don't meet the requirement for significant coverage in independent reliable sources? If so, please let us know which of those requirements (significance, reliability or independence) is not met and why. Or is it that we need confirmation that Robert Campagnola is the same person as the Harikesa Swami/Харикеша Свами described in the sources? If so we can concentrate on looking for sources to establish whether this is the same person. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From here and here it's clear that Harikesa Swami and Robert Campagnola are the same person.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article in its entirety is not based on RS. It is original research. The name used for the article is OR as well -- the sources quoted call him Bobby as I can see. I do not see ANY reliable sources that are in English nor for Bobby nor for Harikesa Swami. It is however clear that the name of the article is incorrect as well, if sources quoted above verified and are acceptable for BLP the article should be moved to Harikesa Swami as if any sources refer to him by that name only. Wikidas© 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From here and here it's clear that Harikesa Swami and Robert Campagnola are the same person.--Gaura79 (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The requirement is that sources should be independent and reliable, and provide substantial coverage. Plenty of such sources have been provided. There is no requirement that they should be understandable by every reader. Part of the function of an encyclopedia is to present information that may not be accessible to the general reader in its original sources, whether this is for reasons of language or of other specialist expertise, in a way that can be understood by such a general reader. The correct name for the article is a matter for discussion on its talk page: on currently available evidence I would support moving it to Harikesa Swami. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without any doubt one of if not the mastermind behind the most common krishna music releases for decades. If any info in the article is in doubt, then this doesnt affect his general relevance.Schmelzle (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qik[edit]
- Qik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article mostly edited by one person, several of the sources for the article are the company blog or webpage. Reads like a press release from the company.XinJeisan (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Candidate for cleanup. There are many third-party references (e.g. Washington Post) which indicates notability. Aiken ♫ 11:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Loads of reliable sources available here. Any sourcing and neutrality concerns can be fixed by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree with Phil - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not the greatest nom ever, but the WP:CRYSTAL aspect as mentioned by Delete voters seems to be the main issue here. Black Kite 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Meydan Tower[edit]
- Meydan Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This skyscraper in Dubai is probably not going to be built, and, to top it off, has no sources that meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. I prod tagged this but the article's author removed the tag. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plz see the talk page i have added more sources then i had removed the tagg.here they are
Skyscrapercity.com Accessmylibrary.com Architecture.com Meed.com Estatesdubai.com Meydan.ae
i think that they are quit sufficient.
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not seeing enough non-trivial coverage from reliable sources to warrant this article at this time. As it is still in the proposal stage, this article might warrant re-creation in the future when more sources discuss the tower. As this Tower stands (or, doesn't stand), it is non-notable and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 14:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While there are not many sources, I easily found some reliable sources: Meed.com is a well respected Middle East business magazine, and worldarchitecturenews.com seems to be reliable too. The fact it is only approved and may never be built should not be a measure of its worthiness for inclusion - Wikipedia has plenty of articles about proposed and vision buildings and even buildings that were never built - eg: The Illinois, Volkshalle. (I know this sounds like the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but I believe it is relevant in this discussion. The nominator starts their notability argument by saying the building is "...probably not going to be built..." which should not be a reason for deletion). Astronaut (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am surprised to see that the nominator's very first act as a Wikipedia editor, was to propose this building for deletion, swiftly followed by creating this AfD. In fact, a large number of Glittering Pillars (talk · contribs) 43 contributions to date have been to propose 6 articles for deletion or !vote delete on 5 other AfD discussions - very odd behavoir for a supposedly novice editor. Astronaut (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that matter? My first edit to AfD (then called Wikipedia:Votes for deletion) was 10 minutes after my first edit as a registered user ... because I was familiar with AfD from having read it while I was still unregistered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Tis true. Let's look at the facts; two years ago, Dubai was booming, and articles on all the wonderful buildings going up were entirely appropriate. Once those articles were written, it was not a stretch to go through Emporis and create articles on future buildings too--who would ever think they weren't going to get built? Now that the bubble has burst, it is inappropriate to have articles on proposed buildings without any reliable sources, since we can be very sure that they will never get built. Even so, if a building's not getting built generated news, I have not nominated it for deletion; I am sticking to proposed buildings (or real buildings) that have no sources other than Emporis and blogs like skyscrapercity (and even those sources typically say if the project is "on hold"). I expected some resistance at AfD, and I am confident that all these article will eventually get deleted. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as we can't use WP:CRYSTAL to say this building won't exist, in fairness we can't use it on an economy, either. It might allow some extra weight for proposals awaiting funding especially if any news stories mention it, but nothing more. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does that matter? My first edit to AfD (then called Wikipedia:Votes for deletion) was 10 minutes after my first edit as a registered user ... because I was familiar with AfD from having read it while I was still unregistered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Astronaut First of all, taking issue with an editor's motivations for nominating an article for deletion is not assuming good faith. Secondly, comparing a proposed skyscraper in Dubai that probably won't get built to The Illinois and the Volkshalle is a poor comparison, as both of those have historical significance. The Illinois was proposed by one of the most recognized architects in America in the 20th century, and is notable for being one mile tall. The Volkshalle was part of Adolf Hitler's plan for Germany, who is one of the most infamous and nefarious leaders in world history. These have significances way beyond the Meydan Tower. Just because they were never built does not mean they have anything else in common with a proposed (and based on the economic climate in Dubai, never to be built) skyscraper in Dubai. Angryapathy (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again with the "...probably won't get built..." and "...never to be built..." as a justification for deletion. What makes you so certain? The economic problems in Dubai are probably a temporary hiccup and major building projects have a long lead time. I believe the chances of already "approved", "under construction" and some "on-hold" projects being abandoned altogether is slim, though some changes may be made to those that have not yet broken ground.
- As for Glittering Pillars' unfounded suggestion that someone has gone through Wikipedia's articles on proposed skyscrapers, then entered their details into Emporis and thereby lent weight to Wikipedia's articles; that is some conspiracy theory. Perhaps Glittering Pillars' would like to provide some proof of this monstorous plot. Astronaut (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a monstrous plot; Emporis and the blogs/forums are the only source of information on these proposed buildings, that and press releases from the developers. I just joined Emporis; I can add information to it. Emporis is a wiki. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, you are overlooking the main point; any topic, even a building that is not built yet, can be notable. For example, Dynamic Tower, with its floors that individually rotate, has not been built, may never be built, and still it is notable. Notability is non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Meydan Tower doesn't have those. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with it only landing in the "Proposal" section of what is already a template filled with
non-notable articles. If it were "approved"? Maybe, but still needing notability and sources. Wikipedia is not a collection of dreams of large buildings that may or may not ever be built. Entirely support deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Doesn't matter if it might or might not be built, point being it hasn't yet, or even started, and claims no special features. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why is this building notable again? Seems to be crystalballing to me. ArcAngel (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joel W. Gonzales[edit]
- Joel W. Gonzales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I think we have a vampire article here...
A very similar title Joel W Gonzales has been deleted multiple times and Salted. Another similar title Joel William Gonzales has also been deleted multiple times- and salted, though it doesn't show in the delete history.
I can't tell what was on those articles before they were deleted, and, quite frankly, it doesn't likely matter. (Though if an Admin looks, and I'm off-base here, please let me know.) If I'm wrong about the recreation, I'm still thinking this is a violation of WP:ENT as this person has not "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot to make it clear in the opening comment that William is this subject's middle name. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Was it speedy deleted or deleted via a discussion before? It it was I would have to say Delete per G4, however the article seems to assert notability except for the one bad reference, so then again I would keep it if it was speedy deleted before. IShadowed ✰ 19:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears that the article was written for Joel W. Gonzales, as evidenced by this edit. fetchcomms☛ 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, fetchomms. This user came into the IRC #wikipedia-en-afc asking for help creating his article about a client. We then explained a possible conflict of interest to him, but he proceeded to create the article in one of my sandboxes. Once it was at a neutral point of view and what seemed notable enough I moved it into mainspace. But,
- 1. If this was deleted before via deletion discussion I vote it should be deleted via G4
- 2. If this was deleted before via CSD I vote it shoud be kept because it seems to count as notable. IShadowed ✰ 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and allow back if notability can ever be properly sourced. I prettied the article up a bit before coming here to comment. His background fails WP:ENT and there is nothing to be found about hin in reliable sources. Twitter, Myspace, and IMDB just don't do it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per above, though it appears to have been CSD'd every time, so can't use G4. fetchcomms☛ 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice against future recreation, if notability standards are met. However, the subject does not seem to meet inclusion requirements at this time; relevant G-hits were minimal and as Schmidt points out, reliable sources were almost nonexistent. Finally, although not directly related to AfD guidelines, the strong appearance that this is an article-for-pay is disturbing and might reasonably be taken into account when closing. Doc Tropics 21:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raul Duarte[edit]
- Raul Duarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced bio of a musician with no demonstrated notability per WP:MUSIC. The closest thing there is to a notability claim here is the phrase "award-winning", with no sourced indication of what actual awards are involved. (It also should be noted that all of the articles which link to this title are expecting an Angolan basketball coach, not an American musician — which, of course, doesn't constitute a deletion rationale in isolation, but it certainly provides a clue to the presence or absence of notability.) I'd also be remiss if I didn't call attention to this related bit of absurdity.
This was previously prodded, but one of the two editors involved in creating the article deprodded with no explanation, and no attempt at improving the article — also arbitrarily removing {{wikify}}, {{notability}} and {{articleissues}} tags at the same time — after the other creating editor's attempt to completely blank the article was reverted as vandalism; shortly after I initiated the full AFD process, the first editor tried to blank the page again. So I'd request that people keep an eye on this for continued tag removal.
At any rate, to me this is a fairly no-brainer delete. What say the rest of you? Bearcat (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one is pretty obvious. No sourcing or referencing. ThaLux (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of how WP:GNG is met offered or available. Nuttah (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DVArchive.com[edit]
- DVArchive.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails Notability. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising--Hu12 (talk) 06:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=7693 for a reference -- Eastmain (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only reference I can find is an announcement of the opening of the business, and simply being open is not a significant enough achievement to sustain an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage - fails WP:CORP and WP:N. Unsourced, not including links to the website, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted as G12 - by Materialscientist. Skier Dude (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Structure and Properties of Ceramics[edit]
- Structure and Properties of Ceramics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork of ceramics WuhWuzDat 06:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any remaining issues can be addressed by editing. Kevin (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slovenia–Mexico relations[edit]
- Slovenia–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
the current article is largely based on one 2 day meeting between these countries 6 years ago. I have found little evidence of significant ongoing relations. there is hardly anything in the first 60 results of this search except a state visit 11 years ago [50]. for those that love to barrel scrape and insert factoids, the 2 countries under 23 side played a match 14 years ago...[51], this clearly does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep that the notable events were some time ago does not invalidate the article--notability continues permanently. We're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and can you give significant third party coverage? that is 1 event that was only covered by 1 source. can you tell me how this meets WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Pantherskin (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Article had improving sources. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yet another experiment in "watch me do this" by Richard Arthur Norton. No, official visits by Second Deputy Assistant Secretaries of Silly Walks do not constitute the "significant coverage" demanded by WP:GNG. Nor do "sessions of the Mixed Commission for Cooperation in the fields of Education and Culture between the Government of the Republic of Slovenia and the Government of the United Mexican States". (Seriously, talk about trivia: that's mind-numbingly boring trivia to boot.) We know thousands of bilateral relations exist; we know states that have relations will engage in all sorts of minor interactions that this encyclopedia would never bother to notice were it not for Richard Arthur Norton's experiment. That doesn't mean we should sanction it, nor does it mean we should keep articles on relations that haven't ever actually been covered as such in any appreciable depth, but are instead a smattering of trivia that happen to have been picked up off the third page of a Google search. (And please, Richard, spare us your theory about the trivial being subjective: trivia is trivia, and agreements on "mutual collaboration in the fields of primary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education; scholarship and residential exchange programmes" are most decidedly trivial.) - Biruitorul Talk 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Huh? I didn't create the article, nor have I commented in this discussion so far, why is my name being invoked here? That's kinda weird, don't you think? Justice Potter Stewart in 1974 said he could recognize pornography when he saw it, even if he couldn't define it. The same must be true of trivia. I am sure 35 years later, that just about everyone can describe pornography very well and in great detail. I am sure trivia can be defined to ... if Wikipedia wanted to define it, but it doesn't. I am casting a keep vote. Wikipedia is about notability and verifiability, not importance. Importance is subjective. I may read 10 Wikipedia articles each day and there are 3 million. That makes 3M-10 not important to me. The rest are just trivial concerns of other people. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I invoked your name because you were the individual who injected a morass of trivia into the article after it was nominated for deletion. That's all I meant, and my apologies if I happened to imply anything else by mentioning you - I didn't mean to. - Biruitorul Talk 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what makes a fact trivia? Don't invoke it, define it, so everyone can recognize it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Biruitorul. As a resident of Slovenia I see this article only as a collection of trivia. --Eleassar my talk 21:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: We have these on many different countries international relations, sure it isn't the best article, but it's a decent one.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JUSTAVOTE. hardly convincing. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- so WP:ILIKEIT seems like your updated reasoning... LibStar (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a deletion of this article is quite important for you, because otherwise I have no explanation for your aggressive stance and unconstructive comments here. Pantherskin (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hardly, arguments (or rather votes) with no real reason add no value to the AfD process. I would say the same even if they said "keep, it's notable." LibStar (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Duffy2032's opinion that the quality of the article is "decent" is sufficient to qualify as a "reason" to keep.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- hardly, arguments (or rather votes) with no real reason add no value to the AfD process. I would say the same even if they said "keep, it's notable." LibStar (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a deletion of this article is quite important for you, because otherwise I have no explanation for your aggressive stance and unconstructive comments here. Pantherskin (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- so WP:ILIKEIT seems like your updated reasoning... LibStar (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even putting aside the subjectiveness of importance (the idea being stretched awfully thin here), the subject is still not notable. — Yerpo Eh? 10:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Don't see a compelling reason to delete, has at least some notability... why not?radek (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wasn't there a moratorium on bilateral relations articles a few months ago? Is that still in effect? I haven't really been paying attention. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you guys want to delete this article you should do the same with the hundreds of similar ones. The article is pretty decent and anything in there is neither unsourced, not-notable or whatever wrong you want to find in it.--Scandza (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping an article. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, give LibStar time and they will be nominated too. He has nominated over 100 by my count. This is his second round, to try and delete ones that were saved in the first round. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- remember your friend Groubani created thousands of bilateral stubs... LibStar (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what?!? What is this, guilt by association? Numerous relations articles started by Groubani have been shown to be notable. Even the absence of foreign relations between nation states is notable. Not only that, these AfDs raise the issue that people completely unfamiliar with these countries are passing judgment on their importance, which creates the appearance of xenophobia. There should be a blanket protection for all of these articles since their deletion is completely counterproductive. Period.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about imposing blanket topic bans for these articles on editors who insist on introducing reams of trivia into them in a desperate, bizarre attempt to preserve them, throwing up absurd accusations like xenophobia (?) in the process? That would really move us forward. (By the way, do note how laughable your charge is: the two Slovenes in this discussion both voted to delete.) - Biruitorul Talk 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cdogsimmons, your position is obviously clear, you want every single bilateral article kept regardless of lack of evidence of actual significant third party coverage of relations (which is a minimum requirement of WP:N). Consensus has clearly shown that not all bilateral articles are notable so your position that every combination must be protected is not the general view. If you want that, you'll need to get some formal endorsement through WP:SANCTION, so go on make a claim there before whinging your personal opinion that everything must be kept in the hope you'll convince others. Biruitorul makes an excellent point. why are even Slovenians voting delete here? are they unfamiliar with the country of Slovenia? Do you speak for Slovenians? do you live in Slovenia or speak Slovenian? Please answer. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and numerous created by Groubani have been deleted or redirected. you have to say if Groubani spent more time actually developing articles instead of creating 100s of stubs we wouldn't have this mess. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have made my position clear, here, and in numerous other discussions regarding these articles. As have you. Biruitorul, I haven't accused anyone of xenophobia here so I expect a retraction. This course of discussion previously led to a temporary freeze on the deletion of these articles. Obviously that freeze was not enough to effect a civil discussion. LibStar, Here's your answer. I am astounded by your suggestion that the creation of stubs is a bad thing. Whinging? That's my opinion. So I said it again. WP:No Personal Attacks please. Also, I haven't been able to find that discussion where a consensus was found that not all bilateral articles are notable. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out. I suggest taking these issues to a higher forum where they can be resolved, not simply put off to a later date.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and numerous created by Groubani have been deleted or redirected. you have to say if Groubani spent more time actually developing articles instead of creating 100s of stubs we wouldn't have this mess. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cdogsimmons, your position is obviously clear, you want every single bilateral article kept regardless of lack of evidence of actual significant third party coverage of relations (which is a minimum requirement of WP:N). Consensus has clearly shown that not all bilateral articles are notable so your position that every combination must be protected is not the general view. If you want that, you'll need to get some formal endorsement through WP:SANCTION, so go on make a claim there before whinging your personal opinion that everything must be kept in the hope you'll convince others. Biruitorul makes an excellent point. why are even Slovenians voting delete here? are they unfamiliar with the country of Slovenia? Do you speak for Slovenians? do you live in Slovenia or speak Slovenian? Please answer. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about imposing blanket topic bans for these articles on editors who insist on introducing reams of trivia into them in a desperate, bizarre attempt to preserve them, throwing up absurd accusations like xenophobia (?) in the process? That would really move us forward. (By the way, do note how laughable your charge is: the two Slovenes in this discussion both voted to delete.) - Biruitorul Talk 22:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what?!? What is this, guilt by association? Numerous relations articles started by Groubani have been shown to be notable. Even the absence of foreign relations between nation states is notable. Not only that, these AfDs raise the issue that people completely unfamiliar with these countries are passing judgment on their importance, which creates the appearance of xenophobia. There should be a blanket protection for all of these articles since their deletion is completely counterproductive. Period.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD which uses consensus has shown at least 200 of these bilateral articles are not notable. I know you don't like that, but perhaps you want to recreate all these articles and the 100s more that have been redirected. to pretend there are all notable...you have given no policy or guideline stated this. it is simply your strong desire. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe any higher forums are necessary as AfDs should continue as normal. because you feel so strongly that every single bilateral must be kept, you need to do this formally via WP:SANCTION. I will abide by any decision made there of WP:ANI but simply because you want me to give up... that will not work. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The countries' relations are notable and have been covered by 3rd party sources. Several state visits have been independently covered and the countries have a free trade agreement in place through the European Union. Slovenia planned to open a consulate in Mexico City this year and also warned its citizens not to travel to Mexico because of the H1N1 virus, both covered by the independent press. A good candidate for expansion. I suggest further investigation in the native languages of the countries for more information. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No policy cited to why this should be deleted. Events described in this article are both sourced and verifiable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kalyan Dass Jain[edit]
- Kalyan Dass Jain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I PROD'ed this article, but I realized a minute too late this was already PROD'ed and contested and the PROD had never been noted in the talk page.
So, I removed my own Prod and am coming to AfD. This article contains no sources at all, and a Google search of the subject's name only produces links back to Wikipedia or sites that copy Wikipedia. I propose deletion as failing WP:V Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. IShadowed ✰ 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject's name may be spelled incorrectly. I searched for Kalyan Das Jain, and didn't find a biography of the politician, but did find Kalyan Das Jain Marg, a street in Agra that might have been named after the politician at http://www.florencemedicines.com/franchisee.html I also found a "List of Freedom Fighters" which included the name. So perhaps the person is notable, but establishing the fact may require access to offline sources in Agra. – Eastmain (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Spelled incorrectly as Eastmain notes above. Gbooks references exist for a mayor of Agra "Kalyan Das Jain". [[52]]--Sodabottle (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The readable text on Gbooks is limited, but this result [[53]] appears to be the best. So, it's a given we move the page to the correct spelling. However, is there enough information here to pass WP:POLITICIAN? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the link above from Bradjamesbrown, there's this which documents his fifth consecutive election, apparently some sort of achievement at that time, and a couple of other stray mentions. By itself this is not significant coverage, but online archives of Indian newspapers don't go back to even the 1990s, and it's extremely likely that there would have been significant coverage of a mayor of Agra in The Times of India and Hindustan Times, after all the current population of the city is 3X that of Wyoming, and therefore it is a "major" city. So this is a good faith keep, saying that the subject will pass WP:Politician#2. Hopefully someone with access to film/paper archives of either newspaper might be able to expand this in future. -SpacemanSpiff 06:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A five-term mayor of a city larger than Detroit and Boston combined pretty clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree. All concerns have been addressed, and this article looks little like it did when I nominated it. I withdraw this nomination. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Akke Kumlien[edit]
- Akke Kumlien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:N -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. If someone writes a book about you, you're probably notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, according to WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about according to the guideline you linked? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.
- Keep. The notability of Kumlien can hardly be in question. The "article" as it stood at the time of nomination might as well have been summarily deleted as having no content, but I am actually surprised that the nominator does not withdraw the nomination at this point. There is a more recent book on Kumlien, a 272 page Stockholm University dissertation by Magdalena Gram, Bokkonstnären Akke Kumlien: tradition och modernitet, konstnärsidentitet och konstnärsroll, Stockholm: Norstedt, 1994. --Hegvald (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the exhibition in an important venue. Apparently sufficient sources. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If he has been the subject of an exhibition at the Royal Library, he must be considered notable by his peers. Tomas e (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per sources and exhibition.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be sufficiently notable.--Staberinde (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NecroShredder[edit]
- NecroShredder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N it should needs improving citations. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is utterly non-notable. Haakon (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete vanity page. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vanity. Miami33139 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karl-Erik Forsberg[edit]
- Karl-Erik Forsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:N and WP:BURDEN. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I expanded the article. – Eastmain (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Forsberg was a very well-known type designer and several good off-line sources exist. The article there now is a new one entirely by Eastmain. The nomination concerned a useless one-liner, and I assume it will be withdrawn at this point. --Hegvald (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Long-time artistic leader of two major Swedish publishers and the creator of many high-profile logos. Tomas e (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The 621 books referring to the subject found by simply clicking on the word "books" above give a clue as to the notability of the subject. Is it really too much to ask deletion nominators to spend a few seconds doing such basic searches before putting the time-wasting burden of defending the existence of articles about obviously notable subjects onto other editors? Aren't we all supposed to be here to try to improve the encyclopedia rather than pass judgement on whether others have jumped through the right hoops in creating articles? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chevelle demo[edit]
- Chevelle demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demos are generally not notable. No significant coverage provided or found. Prod more or less disputed (see article talk page). SummerPhD (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, keep if any sources pop up. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing that can't or shouldn't already be covered in Point No. 1. No claim for notability and completely lacks sources. You would need some solid sources for me to reconsider. kiac. (talk-contrib) 14:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The best I could find for a reliable source is a passing mention in a 411mania.com write-up on the band, not exactly what I'd call "in-depth" coverage for the demo. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage for this to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. As others mentioned, I will consider keeping if other, better sources turn up. Gongshow Talk 18:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Demos are generally not notable. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think what those arguing for deletion were trying to say was that this is WP:SYNTH. There's really no consensus on what to do with this material, whether to delete, rework or merge. Continue discussion on the talk page, please. Fences&Windows 22:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Under Seismic Loading[edit]
- Municipal Solid Waste Landfills Under Seismic Loading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Someone's research paper, not an encyclopedia article. PROD removed by article creator. Drdisque (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. JIP | Talk 07:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, perhaps merge. This isn't original research. It's a summary of material from a variety of reliable sources, cited in the article. The material might be more useful if it were added to a more general article about landfills (and to one about seismic engineering as well) rather than as a stand-alone article, but I think the references are enough to establish notability. - Eastmain (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as is I don't know if there is anything salvageable from this article, it does sound more like an essay or an answer to a test question than an encyclopedia article. The topic itself seems to be OR, created by the essay-writer. Angryapathy (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. How on earth can this article, or its title, be called "original research" when just by looking at the titles of the cited sources we can see that this topic has been the subject of many papers in academic journals, and that the article is based on such papers? Whether this is best as a stand-alone article or merged elsewhere can be discussed on the talk page, but I can see that this is relevant to both waste management and seismic engineering so I don't quite see how merging this would do any good, because the information would need to be merged into more than one place. We should, obviously, get rid of "municipal" from the title, because I don't believe that seismic forces ask whether a landfill site is municipal or not before doing their stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to a broader and more understandable title, like Seismic effects on landfills. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT PAPERS as there is nothing encyclopedic in the content that I can see. ArcAngel (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. OR, hoax, nonsense, any/all of the above. tedder (talk) 06:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TooKoo Meter[edit]
- TooKoo Meter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Steaming unreferenced pile of Original Research WuhWuzDat 03:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Payatas Baptist Church[edit]
- Payatas Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero third-party reliable sources. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Tags requesting sources are removed from article, so apparently there's nothing left to add. Delete. ~YellowFives 03:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails to meet general notability guidelines. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 16:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nomination reasoning. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable church. Crafty (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable church. Taqi Haider (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I tried to improve this, but notability per WP:GNG seems a long way off. MuffledThud (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no point for this article, otherwise we'd have thousands of non-notable stubs. --TheGrimReaper 11:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah Greenwood[edit]
- Hannah Greenwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. hardly gets any coverage for her most "well known" role. [54]. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Seems to have some notability as a stage actress, and her career pushes at WP:ENT just a bit. This one might best serve the project with some decent cleanup and sourcing to meet WP:BLP and WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Her roles seem to have a lot of coverage and she seems to have just enough to scrape by notability. I've added two and provided contextual quotes for them. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the starring title roles of an ABC TV series and a recurring role on Neighbours? Just crosses the notability line for me. --Canley (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, agree wtih Canley.-Regancy42 (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also agree with Canley. Vartanza (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Canley. Just having a STARRING role in a TV series is enough to pass WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 07:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marion Baumann-Parkhurst[edit]
- Marion Baumann-Parkhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion denied due to claim of published autobiography, which would connote notability. However, autobiography is self-published through Genie Press, which does not exert editorial discretion. Anyone, notable or not, can publish an autobiography at Genie Press. Google search turns up a few other sources, but all are based on the same self-published autobiography so there aren't any reliable third-party sources discussing this individual. I think this person simply doesn't meet notability requirements. NellieBly (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, I consider this probably a valid A7, for in my view the assertion of a self published or vanity press book with no further information not to be a reasonable indication of possible importance. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a self-published autobiography doesn't establish notability and there are no other sources writing about this person. -- Whpq (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of words ending in -ology[edit]
- List of words ending in -ology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Primarily Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not a usage guide, even for suffixes.
- Lists of words that end in a particular suffix are not sufficiently connected to be a valid encyclopedia article. In this case it's even worse, since it's only a subset of articles that end in -ology; not even all the -logy's are present (and there's little point in an article on that either, since the wiktionary already has a list of those.)
- Article is unreferenced
- Article is on a non notable topic (there is no evidence in the article that -ology words are more notable than other words that have a prefix, or suffix, or infix, and the wikipedia doesn't have those either). It seems to be a bad idea for the Wikipedia to start listing words with particular lexical features, all the words starting with the letter 'a', 'atypical' 'asynchronous' etc. etc. The wikipedia isn't a reference work for say, playing scrabble or filling in cross-word puzzles; there are specialist works that do that much better than the wikipedia can or wants to.
- I'm certain that this article topic is not covered by other general encyclopedias like the wikipedia, but is probably covered by other types of reference works, dictionaries and thesauri etc.
- The wikipedia permits glossaries, but article is not a glossary. Glossaries are lists of words for use with a particular discipline, but no discipline I am aware of requires a list specifically of 'ologies' and nothing else. I'm sure there is no such discipline.
- Article has not done enough to be encyclopedic, and could not ever do enough.
Given the article is already covered acceptably in the wiktionary I'm calling for Delete. - Wolfkeeper 02:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per article is on a non-notable topic. For comparsion, a list of words and trademarked terms created during the space age starting with astro- may be notable from a historical perspective but only marginally so. This suffice doesn't even come close. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the first sentence of the nom. However, unfortunately, this topic is not covered adequately in Wiktionary. Note that neither wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -ology nor wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -logy lists such well-known words as "biology" or "psychology". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are listed at wikt:-logy#Derived terms however, and the ology rule is also described there. I doubt the wikipedia lists everything either, and the effort being spent at the wikipedia would very probably be better spent completing the wiktionary coverage, which is doubtless a much better place for covering lexical topics anyway.- Wolfkeeper 03:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I didn't know where the information might be found in Wiktionary. But regardless of how well or how poorly Wiktionary covered the topic, I agree that this is the kind of topic that falls within Wiktionary's ambit, not Wikipedia's. If Wiktionary had been doing a poor job with this topic, the solution would have been to improve Wiktionary's coverage rather than take on the job here at Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or delete. The current article is both original research and trivia. The topic of the word ending "logy" and its use in English is encyclopedic, but the article -logy covers that topic much better than this page (and better than wiktionary does, AFAICT). I think it might be possible to create a worthwhile Wikipedia article that expands upon the information in -logy with a large, sourced, alphabetical list of examples (similar to the list in -onym), but that would require a lot more work than has gone into this article so far. If the creator wants to do that work, then userfy it. Otherwise, delete it. --Orlady (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an indiscriminate list. There's nothing actually connecting the topics these words are about. JIP | Talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ?Merge with the article -logy Suggestion: how about taking the list part (which admittedly still needs a lot of clean up) and merging it (as a section) into the article -logy? Is that a possibility? Invertzoo (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the list is not appropriate for merger because it's largely original research. That is, to a substantial extent, the definitions on the list are no more than educated guesses as to what the words might mean. --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have to agree with Orlady about the merge proposal. Too much WP:OR. It's more or less a vio of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Userfy, per Orlady. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The general concept of how these words are formed is encyclopedic and so are a group of examples.. NOT INDISCRIMINATE is important, and the fact that we follow it shows that since the examples are Wikipedia articles the list is hardly indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly we could have an extremely large number of different ways to have lists of words in the wikipedia. FWIW Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Tips_on_dealing_with_other_material has a blanket guideline against lists of words, and this has been there since the beginning of that guideline in 2005.- Wolfkeeper 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article title and subject matter were -logy as a suffix, describing how the soffix is used and its historical development, using only a very few carefully selected examples to demonstrate particular points, then it would be much harder to argue that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article. As it stands, it's about as helpful as "List of people with green eyes." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)rela[reply]
- Comment: The article only contains words with articles or words related to such words, therefore, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR may not apply. It's still not useful IMHO. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Necare[edit]
- Necare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I did a simple search in Google for Necare and it returned a lot of sources. The band has profile in a lot of music site, about metal or not [55] [56] [57] [58]. There are reviews about its last album [59] [60]. One can find interviews too [61] [62]. Surely the band satisfies WP:BAND#1.Victor Silveira (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you need to re-read "WP:BAND" before use it as an argument for non-deletion. Sing365.com is just mirroring a biography, taken from the band's now defunct official website. NME.com is using Wikipedia as source (the same biography). The other sources also fails the notability criteria. See also WP:SOURCESEARCH.--Cannibaloki 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannibaloki, I read a lot of times WP:BAND, but you are right about Sing365 and NME. However, the other sources are reliable. If you do not think so, say the reasons, please. Don't say "they are not reliable sources" only, because these words alone are not self-justified, right? Victor Silveira (talk) 03:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And about not citing the source, I am not the first ot last to do it. In fact, I do not do it usually, however if you read what I wrote before you write your comment, you will see I'm busy these days. So, please, don't judge people before you know the whole context, right? Victor Silveira (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They did an interview in a reliable source media. [63] Dream Focus 12:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I found a review published by Exclaim! magazine.--Cannibaloki 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Not much to add; here is a short blurb on the group's singer contributing guest vocals for another band's album. Per above, there appears to be just enough sources to satisfy WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 17:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All of us found reliable sources for this band. Probabily, it is not so difficult to find more, unfortunately I can not do it this week. However, I think all these sources are sufficient to give notability to the band. I have no doubt about it!Victor Silveira (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited and expanded the article, including in it the sources listed above. Victor Silveira (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though they only have one never charted album listed on Billboard, it seems that they have significant coverage in other areas, so they pass WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windent[edit]
- Windent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small medical (dental practice management) software company that has attracted little to no attention from reliable sources. I can see no book mentions, news articles (apart from press releases), scholarly reviews, awards or other things that meet the notability criteria. There appears to be insufficient independent material to write about this company Peripitus (Talk) 02:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The first two results, this article and this article are both press releases. The rest of the results are either passing mentions or are unrelated to this company. This company fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep 13 sources on this organization.[64] Ikip (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Few of those relate to this company - some far predate it's foundation. All that I can see are press releases, or passing mentions - Peripitus (Talk) 02:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The company appears to have fewer than 100 employees and its product does not appear exceptional in any way. Ben (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the very model of a software package that is unlikely to be noticed outside of a small circle of people interested in managing dental offices. Any notability guideline that suggests that such a thing could be an encyclopedia subject would appear to require tightening. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davi Rei[edit]
- Davi Rei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost definite hoax article. No references to this person that I can find - looks to have stolen content from Alexandre Pato. JaGatalk 02:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete it does appear like a hoax. Ikip (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. There is no indication that this person exists. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Here is an actual confession, on the Manchester United website, that Davi Rei is an invented prank! [65] --MelanieN (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windent Platinum[edit]
- Windent Platinum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Interesting software package that does not appear to have generated enough interest, by reliable sources, to meet any of the notability requirements. I cannot see any significant mention, apart from press releases. Would have redirected to the company itself but that also appears to have notability problems. Peripitus (Talk) 02:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no google news sources. No sources I can find. Ikip (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable software by a non-notable company (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windent). I, too, cannot find independent coverage in reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. per nomination withdrawl JForget 01:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Also the article was moved without mention here to Vs. (video game) --JForget 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VS (Playstation One Game)[edit]
- VS (Playstation One Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Badly written with no citations and nothing I can find showing notability. I'd tagged it with PROD, but the article creator removed it (so far, with no explanation). ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Following sources, unsure if they provide enough notability, but thought I would add in anyway.
- Keep – that GameRankings link shows a good amount of significant coverage that can establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Appears to be enough coverage to establish notability. The IGN review doesn't provide a lot of information, but it should be enough to make a stub. Obviously the game's title will make it difficult to find additional information, but there are six other reviews listed on GameRankings that could be used as sources. Reach Out to the Truth 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found. Tag this one with lots of mx tags. --Teancum (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Given the current consensus and the improvement of the article (however minor), I'm considering withdrawing the nomination. I won't withdraw it yet until either a) the article is significantly improved or b) any editor agrees that I should withdraw. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Like 99% of PS1 games this one is within the sourcing black hole - it was released before the internet became the source of game reviews it is today and yet is too young for the numerous magazine scan databases (World of Spectrum, Amiga Magazine Rack, Mean Machines etc). This is a mainstream non-budget game released during the console's active life, it will be reviewed in numerous magazines, it's just that those magazines are not readily available to source with. In addition to the IGN review there's some info on allgame, which should be enough to tide it over, surely? I'll try to tweak and cite the article. Someoneanother 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did what I could, couldn't figure out what to do with the in-universe character info so I just replaced it. Would rather not have, but couldn't see what else to do with it. Someoneanother 14:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination Withdrawn: Unless there are any objections, this looks far better now. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 17:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Neutrality (international relations). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral governments[edit]
- Neutral governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What appears to be either original research or a synthetic article title. Someone's list of who was a neutral party in various conflicts. Seeing as most goverments are neutral (or uninvolved) in most conflicts over time I really cannot see the purpose of this. Does not seem to be a properly encyclopedic topic. Peripitus (Talk) 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Largely unencyclopedic and so muddled as to be innacurate. While it's true for example, that the US entered WW2 after Pearl Habor, it's wildly false that the US was neutral up until then. Hairhorn (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Neutrality (international relations). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Neutrality (international relations). PDCook (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Neutrality (international relations). The user who created this has only used Wikipedia to promote his fringe claims about the American Civil War and the Confederate States of America. Grey Wanderer (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Neutrality (international relations) as plausible search term. --Taelus (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the targeted article above as everybody voted. The snowball is very fast. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2008 World Finals Odds[edit]
- 2008 World Finals Odds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural do-over of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 World Finals Odds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by davidwr (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 November 2009
- Delete - Not a sportsbook. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is not even clear from this article that the odds stated in this article were actual gambling odds according to which one could have placed a bet at a casino sports book. As a remote second choice, slightly merge to Monster Jam World Finals. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete worthless -Drdisque (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Irrelevant "sport", irrelevant lines--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I was the original nominator (only for the automated nomination to fail to register) I say like I said on the original nomination, Wikipedia is not a tipsheet for gambling, also pointless to merge. Donnie Park (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unreferenced original research. As mentioned in the first nom, odds vary from bookmaker to bookmaker anyway. --Jimbo[online] 12:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If necessary, merging discussion may be had on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ayala Westgrove Heights[edit]
- Ayala Westgrove Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. I cant find the essay for notability in developments. Tim1357 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to be original research; no references to sustain notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Ayala Westgrove Heights appears to pass WP:N. See this article from The Philippine Star and this article from Manila Bulletin. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep it might prefer as notability in residential places. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I changed it to Weak Keep. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan talk contribs 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, due to multiple primary and secondary mentions in articles, or if consensus believes its more appropriate Merge into Santa Rosa City unless it can be shown to be its own municipality. Most residential developments are not given their own articles, but are mentioned in the articles of the communities/towns/cities where they occur. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juliet Seignious[edit]
- Juliet Seignious (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, see this version for the previous version. Her notability stems from being a founding member of the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, but we don't know of any specific contributions she made, without that there is no article, just an essay about her early life PirateArgh!!1! 12:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nomination ContinueWithCaution (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Coverage seems to be trivial / en passant, nothing to distinguish encyclopedic notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater. Because Juliet Seignious founded Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, her name is a plausible search term. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elman Abdurrahmanov[edit]
- Elman Abdurrahmanov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence provided to show this person meets either general notability or sporting notability. Previously PRODded back in March 2008. GiantSnowman 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of sourcing (regardless of WP:ATHLETE). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. Also fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level of football. --Jimbo[online] 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salakhat Agaev[edit]
- Salakhat Agaev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence provided to show this person meets either general notability or sporting notability. GiantSnowman 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of sourcing to sustain notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to appear at a fully professional level, and there's no evidence of general notability elsewhere. Bettia (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failure of WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sat Nam[edit]
- Sat Nam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This mantra fails to meet notability requirements. After removing self-published sources there seems to be little evidence of it being support by reliable sources in the future. Ash (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Entirely lacking in independent sources. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It seems that just being Miss Indiana makes her notable. Fair enough. Fences&Windows 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brittany Mason[edit]
- Brittany Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per One Event, I checked the list of Miss Indiana page and the other created articles were legitimate ( they had done other things), this one though seems to be a one-off and the article's contents can be put in the table in Miss Indiana USAPirateArgh!!1! 15:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it seems to be established that Miss USA delegates are notable by reason of being such. See Category:Miss USA 2008 delegates and Category:Miss USA delegates. I can't find a specific policy/guideline to support that, but it seems reasonable based on WP:ANYBIO which says that a person is notable if "the person has received a notable award or honor", and Miss Indiana USA is a notable award. – jaksmata 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per jaksmata. Also, article sourcing should be improved; surely there must be some other reliable sources that have covered her career. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per jaksmata. ArcAngel (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salim Rambo[edit]
- Salim Rambo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. nothing in gnews [66] which is a bit surprising since he fled to England. was wondering if WP:ONEVENT applies here? this person is not notable for anything else except for being a refugee. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this person falls under the one event policy. The only news stories I've found on Salim Rambo describe his attempted deportation, nothing else. If there was an article about British deportation policies, it could be merged there. By the way, I found reliable and seriously biased sources on google by searching for "Salim Rambo" deported – jaksmata 14:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. ArcAngel (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since it fails WP:V through a complete lack of sources... Black Kite 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Regina Monologues (stage play)[edit]
- The Regina Monologues (stage play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Searching for this play brings up a lot of references to The Simpsons. The script exists, certainly, and has an ISBN, but loads of things exist and have ISBNs. I am not persuaded that this is a notable play even though it is obviously verifiable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep found a review from BBC.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it appears significant that the creator has not come back to the article which appears to be a "hit and run" publicity piece, nor taken any part in this discussion. My feeling is that the play has not yet become notable, and that, when it does, an article is warranted. UNtil then it is just another play with just another ISBN for the script, performed by just another set of actors in just another theatre. Odd how no-one cares about either the article or the deletion discussion, though. Consensus is needed here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fiddle Faddle. This probably doesn't help consensus, but I fail to see how this is notable. ArcAngel (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betrayal, Fear, Anger, Hatred (EP)[edit]
- Betrayal, Fear, Anger, Hatred (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources found to establish notability. Only ghits are discographies. Per WP:NALBUMS, this small track listing stub should be deleted and merged with the main band page. SnottyWong talk 01:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty notable release by notable band. AFD is not the place to propose a merge.--Michig (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you provide independent, reliable, third-party sources to establish notability of this album (not the band itself, but the album)? SnottyWong talk 12:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the article. And it's an EP, not an album.--Michig (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two references in the article that I can access over the Internet are mostly about the album Mama, which is the album that the four tracks from this EP were eventually included on. Perhaps this article would be better merged into Mama (Nomeansno album)? SnottyWong talk 21:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the article. And it's an EP, not an album.--Michig (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you provide independent, reliable, third-party sources to establish notability of this album (not the band itself, but the album)? SnottyWong talk 12:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig's findings and expansion. Gongshow Talk 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as basic notability goes, the only criterion an album has to meet is that the band that recorded it is notable enough for inclusion — the question of whether the album should have a separate article, or a redirect to the band's article or to a discography, isn't a matter of establishing an independent claim of notability for the album in isolation, but of whether it's an article about the album or just a track listing. This is an actual, referenced article about an album by a notable band, so keep. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though it looks like this AfD is going to end up being a Keep, I'd just like to clarify that just because a band is notable does not automatically mean that every album they created is notable enough for its own album. WP:NALBUMS states that if a band is notable enough for an article, then an album by that band may be notable enough for its own article, but any article on wikipedia still has to satisfy WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 02:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to reread my comment if you think that anything in it is in contradiction with policy — I didn't say that every release by a notable band is automatically entitled to a standalone article regardless of referencing. But every release by a notable band is entitled to be either a standalone article, if legitimate references are present (which they are here), or a redirect to the band's main article or discography. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bearcat. DigitalC (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Melodramatics[edit]
- The Melodramatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient significant coverage/reliable sources to indicate that this band passes WP:BAND. Triplestop x3 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:BAND, the news coverage on this band is mainly from school publications, and they have not met any of the 12 criteria given there for being notable. It could also be deleted per WP:CSD#A7, since the article makes no credible claim of significance or importance. – jaksmata 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND, and like the others above, I can not find in-depth coverage from reliable sources sufficient to warrant keeping this article. Gongshow Talk 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cousances[edit]
- Cousances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable manufacturer of cookery. The article has been tagged an non-notable and unreferenced for over a year and a half with no efforts whatsoever to clean it up. As-is the article's only attempt to even CLAIM notability is an unsourced claim OF a claim that the company is 450 years old. DJBullfish 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (yes it needs expansion). [67] is in Ffrench -- but says the first masters of the foundry at Cousances started in 1553, [68] the oldest foundry was established in 1553, 1878 Didot annual mentions foundry and date [69]. One not read much French to figure this one out. Collect (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Howard[edit]
- Jon Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is not inherited. I do not see this individual passing WP:N and see no reliable sources indicating notability. Basket of Puppies 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information in the first portion of the article is inherited notability. The second part is that which makes Jon Howard notable (songwriting credits as an individual). Please take note of this. --Jaunsk (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Due to his involvement in two wholly separate bands with clearly established notability; it makes merging the information difficult. I expect sources could be found in places like christian rock publications. -Verdatum (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve: According #6WP:BAND, a musician is notable if it "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Jon Howard played in two notable bands: Dizmas and Stellar Kart. So, I think it is sufficient to keep the article. However, the article is too little and has nothing about Jon Howard independently of his bands. I suggest to keep and expand it.Victor Silveira (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mr. Silveira. Meets notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Coffin (comedian)[edit]
- Peter Coffin (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:WEB notability guidelines Fbifriday (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any significant coverage of him. This and this turn up nothing about him. Being a guest twice on a now defunct TV show and getting a few thousand subscribers on YouTube because he can kick himself in the balls does not make him notable. Timmeh 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jewdas. Black Kite 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geoffrey Cohen (nom de plume)[edit]
- Geoffrey Cohen (nom de plume) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, this article is a reference to a person quoted in a few insignificant blog posts. It is written in a jokey, non-NPOV style, and may in fact be entirely a joke. It is linked only from a small number of articles by the same authors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gacohen (talk • contribs) 23 November 2009
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep&Merge. Not sure if I'm advocating two mutually exclusive things here. Obviously this article has been written by someone from this group but the stylistic problems you highlight can be amended by other editors. Geoffrey Cohen (nom de plume) meets the notability criteria, in my point of view, due to the fact that he was the subject of an interview in a British national paper - The Times (or a blog thereof still under Times editorial control). He's also been interviewed in the Jewish Chronicle and the Jerusalem Post. In fact the Jewish Chronicle named Geoffrey Cohen/Jewdass as 67th most powerful Jew in Britain in 2008. It mightn't say a lot for British-Jewish ethnic power, but clearly this character/group is sufficiently notable to be kept. However, I would suggest that this article be merged with Jewdas as they are synonyms of each other. Freekra (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yashar Abuzerov[edit]
- Yashar Abuzerov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence provided to show this person meets either general notability or sporting notability. Previously PRODded back in March 2008. GiantSnowman 15:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete No evident proof of notability --Rirunmot 00:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. FK Baku is a professional team, and its players are therefore notable. This may be the same person as Yasar Abuzarov or Yaşar Abuzarov, mentioned in the FK Baku as among the 10 top scorers, and who was with the team during the period 2003–2005. Can someone verify the spelling? - Eastmain (talk) 01:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no mention of the Azerbaijani Premier League on the list of fully-pro leagues. Even if it is, there are currently no sources which indicate this person meets WP:ATHLETE; if you find one, I am more than happy to withdraw the AfD. GiantSnowman 01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, a Google search of the alternative spelling Eastmain suggested brings up RSSSF, which says he scored in the league...however, there is no source that shows it is a fully-pro league, as specified by WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 01:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Fifa.com page for Azerbaijan at http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=aze/nationalleague/standings.html lists the top team as "UEFA Champions League Qualifiers" and two others as "UEFA Europa League". A search for Azerbaijan at Fifa.com http://www.fifa.com/search/index.htmx?q=azerbaijan doesn't do much to answer the question either. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. Could it also be a possible hoax? A Google search brings very little up. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. Also fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has not competed at a fully-pro level of football. --Jimbo[online] 13:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Jimbo. ArcAngel (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exilio[edit]
- Exilio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recently published book with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Megan McArdle[edit]
- Megan McArdle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I initiated an AfD on this page years ago, and it appears to have a life of its own as its reanimated corpse was brought back by an admin "per request on WP:AN", whatever that means. I was hoping to see something more than what was originally here, but it's still just a biography of a non-notable blogger. They are a dime a dozen these days. This article mentions many places McArdle has been published, but none of those establish notability. There are no sources demonstrating that any articles have been written about McArdle in any notable, reliable publications, nor that she is regarded as important or widely cited. Does not meet WP:BIO. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per request on WP:AN means someone requested it on WP:AN... I don't particularly remember this but I have restored the deleted edit history to show all the edits. No comment on notability etc. Woody (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Woody. I figured it was so long ago that it would be nigh on impossible to remember what happened. I assume someone wanted it back to work on notability. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it I userfied it to User:MilesAgain/Sandbox who then moved it back into mainspace. User:MilesAgain is blocked as the sock of a banned user and this article was moved into mainspace after he was banned. As such I have speedied it under G5. As an aside I don't think it meets the notability requirements and I will happily recreate to allow a continued AfD but as it stands, I have deleted it to avoid process for the sake of process. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Woody. I figured it was so long ago that it would be nigh on impossible to remember what happened. I assume someone wanted it back to work on notability. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's not just another blogger -- she's one of very few professional bloggers working for a well-respected publication. Saagpaneer (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide reliable sources proving she meets WP:BIO. I cannot find any. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an interview with her from the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/seven_questions_for_megan_mcar.cfm
- Here are a dozen mentions from the New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/topics/megan-mcardle
- Here's New York Magazine reporting on a controversy in which she was a key figure: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/05/times_writers_bankruptcy_turni.html Saagpaneer (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's one of the most famous economics bloggers in the world. --Lask3r —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. She's a noted online commentator (sounds better than "blogger", right?) who works for The Atlantic, and has been cited in notable publications like The New York Times. I just added two more bit to the article that may help to establish notability: a re-added profile piece on her, removed because the URL was broken, now with updated URL; and a reference to her recent appearance on the TV show The Kudlow Report. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you commented (I was going to ping you today about this because I remember you from last time). I do respect your opinion, but I still don't see how she meets WP:BIO. Being a notable commentator or blogger is not enough. She has to be the subject of one or more articles in notable sources, or we need sources naming her as a recognized expert. I have actually looked, and been unable to find any such sources. I personally contribute to publications just as or more notable than McArdle, and I wouldn't even consider myself marginally notable for an encyclopedia. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spike. Compare your google footprint with hers. She brings fame to The Atlantic, not vis-versa. --Lask3r
- Uh, that's not my real name. But thanks. :) --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the notability outside of blogrolls? --Lmbstl (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a follow-up comment, I must repeat my calls for reliable sources proving this person meets WP:BIO. I've seen several claims that she is an important and notable blogger, but I have yet to see any sources indicating that she has been the subject of articles in reliable publications, or that she is considered an expert. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm new to this whole article deletion thing, but as someone who has used the article on McArdle for informational purposes in the past, I'm just surprised that anyone would want to delete it. I went ahead and added some further evidence of her noteworthiness - TV appearances, media mentions, etc. Forgive me if it's clumsily done, I'm no wiki-expert.--75.145.91.229 (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep. A glance at the searches at the top of the AFD shows that other people talk about her and her work. A lot. Glittering Pillars (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this process does result in a "keep", could someone restore the article's talk page as well? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored it. It looks like the consensus here is against me, but I see no reason to wait until this closes to bring back the talk page. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable by all accounts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular T · C 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geoffrey James[edit]
- Geoffrey James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person is not noteworthy per Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore, this person's page states that "He has written several books"; however, a search of Amazon or other major book retailer contradicts this. The claim appears to be false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jthorley65 (talk • contribs) 2009/11/21 06:14:08
- Keep Topic has marginal notability, which matches the stub-ness of the article. His book, The Tao of Programming, should redirect to this page. And it is listed on Amazon.com, but not notable enough to warrant it's own article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quoted in NYT [70] and identified as being on BNet where he apparently is a b;pgger under editorial control. Did an interview with Scott Adams etc. for BNet. Most notable person in the world? No. Meets notbility for WP? YEs. Collect (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Collect and Angry. Appears to meet minimal notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laurie Smith (pornographic actress)[edit]
- Laurie Smith (pornographic actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nominated for an award she didn't win, and lacks non-trivial coverage otherwise. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obscure actress. Also no pictures and the internet motto is "if there aren't pictures, it didn't happen —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Obamo (talk • contribs) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tao of Programming[edit]
- The Tao of Programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a self-promotional page by the author of the book. The book itself is not noteworthy and is a poor seller; therefore it is not noteworthy per Wikipedia's standards.
- Are you accusing Logomancer (talk · contribs) or Project2501a (talk · contribs) of being socks of Geoffrey James? --Gwern (contribs) 16:08 21 November 2009 (GMT)
- Redirect/Merge As I have stated at AfD for James, this should redirect to his WP page. Author has marginal notability, but the book does not warrant it's own article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the Google News & Google Books hits for it? --Gwern (contribs) 17:18 23 November 2009 (GMT)
- Most of the Gnews hits are for something different from the Manilla News. I'm not saying we delete the content, I am just saying we merge it with the author, since the article on this book is longer than the author. Angryapathy (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Manilla News, what? I'm referring to things like the New York Times or Miami Herald hits. (Seriously, how notable does an old computer humor book have to be to get coverage in MSM papers like them?)
- And so what if the author article is shorter? You'll notice the articles on the Odyssey and the Iliad are longer than on Homer, and William Shakespeare doesn't much more (or even as much, perhaps) space as Hamlet. --Gwern (contribs) 00:35 24 November 2009 (GMT)
- Are we actually comparing James to Shakespeare and Homer? Two of the seminal writers in the history of literature to a guy who wrote a computer humor book? That's like comparing apples to...rocks. Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incredulity is not an argument. Since you don't seem to understand basic logic and argumentation and have focused on something entirely else, let me spell it out for you.
- '1. All articles on books longer than the articles on the author should be merged into the article on the author; 2. The Tao is longer than James; QED, 3. The Tao should be merged into James.' Counter-argument: '1. Hamlet should not be merged into Shakespeare; Odyssey should not be merged into Homer; Iliad should not be merged into Homer. 2. Either Hamlet or Iliad or Odyssey is longer than the respective author's article. 3. All articles on books longer than the article on the author should be merged into the article on the author. One of the three should be merged (by 2 & 3), but it should not be merged (by 1).' This is a contradiction.
- Now, we can either reject the fact that one of the book articles is longer than the author's - and reveal ourselves to be mendacious madmen. Or we can reject that Hamlet or Iliad or Odyssey should be standalone articles - and reveal ourselves madmen. Or we can reject the stupid argument that all long-enough book articles should be merged into author articles, and say some book articles should be merged, in which case you have shown no reason at all why The Tao ought to be one of those 'some'. --Gwern (contribs) 16:55 24 November 2009 (GMT)
- What I found silly was comparing seminal works from seminal authors to a very minor work from a very minor author. Shakespeare and Hamlet have volumes upon volumes written about them; James and his book have a few pages. So to compare the two, and equate merging this book to James's article with Shakespeare/Hamlet is a very poor comparison.
- As for the case at hand, I see that this book has been discussed in reliable sources. However, the majority of those sources are from the year in which the book was published, over 20 years ago. I found one mention from 1997, which is over 10 years ago. Since this book does not seem to have any lasting effect (according to the sources), the information would be best served merging/redirecting to the author.
- As for the article itself, NONE of the information is cited. If the uncited info is removed, all we would have is the information in the infobox and the mini-book titles (all of which can be gleaned from the book itself). I do not see many sources to add or attribute this information; as far as I can tell, the sources only have quotes from the book, and do not actually discuss the book itself.
- From all of this, I believe WP and the topics in question would be best served by merging with the author. Angryapathy (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny; I must've missed the point in your comments where you made clear that your argument was actually 'all books with articles longer than their authors should be merged into the authors; unless Angryapathy considers them seminal books by seminal authors, in which case it's silly to even suggest such a merge.' I apologize for parodying your argument; clearly my disproof doesn't work then...
- Notability does not disappear. It does not matter whether the 3rd party sources (which you admit exist now?) are from today, a year ago, a decade ago, or 10 millenniums. Once notable, always notable.
- And being uncited is never a reason for deletion! AfD is solely about notability; nothing less, nothing more. Being cited or uncited is only an issue of article quality. Given that, I suggest we close this AfD as otiose, and move on to regular merge discussions if need be. --Gwern (contribs) 21:27 24 November 2009 (GMT)
- I stated, "I am just saying we merge it with the author, since the article on this book is longer than the author." I never stated that "all articles about authors should be longer than their books." You, in fact, are the only one who has stated that. Please do not insert words into my mouth. You should assume good faith and base your comments on what is actually said.
- That being said, I still believe that this book would be better served redirecting and merging with the author. Reading WP:BK, it is stated that a book is notable if, "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." The NYT source did not have this book as it subject; it merely took a anecdote from the book. I am assuming the Beacon Journal article discusses the book at length; however, this is one source, and that is not multiple. Angryapathy (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so your argument was simply not an argument at all, since 'the article on the book is longer than the author' is no rule of logic or desiderata I have ever heard of before. Forgive for applying the principle of charity to put words in your mouth that were merely wrong, as opposed to being outright non sequiturs.
- As for independent works: are we disregarding the Miami Herald review? The Computer World article by James? The brief NYT review? The 40 other citations & mentions of it in books and periodicals? --Gwern (contribs) 02:43 26 November 2009 (GMT)
- Are we actually comparing James to Shakespeare and Homer? Two of the seminal writers in the history of literature to a guy who wrote a computer humor book? That's like comparing apples to...rocks. Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the Gnews hits are for something different from the Manilla News. I'm not saying we delete the content, I am just saying we merge it with the author, since the article on this book is longer than the author. Angryapathy (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the Google News & Google Books hits for it? --Gwern (contribs) 17:18 23 November 2009 (GMT)
- Redirect/Merge The book is known enough in computer science and computer engineering circles, and despite its age, is still relevant today. One single article for the author and his books might be most appropriate. 194.250.151.28 (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the book is even better known than the author in computer science circles. Don't delete it!! And such an old work is not in need of promotion, I wouldn't consider the article as author's self promotion. --asegura (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not a programmer and I've heard of this book. Shadowjams (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Miami Herald, Computerworld, The New York Times, etc. all have full articles dedicated to this book. Ikip (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, and a minnow (if not a trout) for the nominator. A cursory examination of the edit history for both this and the author's bio page provides no evidence to suggest that the page is self-promotional. The sales volume for the book is unclear from either the article or the nomination. This leaves us with the unsupported argument that the book is "not noteworthy". I would argue that the author's bio page could be redirected here, since the book would appear to be better known than he is.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the references. Not just notable, but famous. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. No doubt.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I fully expect to be taken to DRV for this, but here goes. The problem is WP:NTEMP - "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Since this individual clearly doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, what are we to do if he never passes it? Is such an individual still notable because they received some coverage in their formative years? The answer, I'm afraid, has to be no. When (as seems likely) they do hit ATH, then of course the article should be recreated. Black Kite 00:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Kassel[edit]
- Matt Kassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Matt Kassel is not notable. He is not a professional footballer and has yet to attain enough of a reputation or importance to be published on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interzil (talk • contribs) 2009/11/21 07:51:40
- Delete, doesn't meet football notability guidelines at this point in his career. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't yet pass WP:ATHLETE. Good luck, Matt. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and add if he plays professionally or notability can be established. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; a college career isn't enough, recreate if and when this guy ever plays as a professional. GiantSnowman 14:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:N with an unusual amount of national media coverage over an extended period of time, for a college player: [71], [72], [73] Nfitz (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually, based on previous college soccer players' AfDs, that is a usual amount, or even less than usual; anyways, it's certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG, as they're just run of the mill sports news, which fail WP:NTEMP. GiantSnowman 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article from the Washington Post is hardly "run of the mill sports news". Wikipedia is not paper so individuals that receive significant coverage in reliable sources pass the inclusion policy on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: relisted to obtain more comments on the sources Nfitz provided. Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't pass WP:THLETE yet, sources aren't enough to prove otherwise. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Am I the only one who initially thought that this was an article for a misspelling of Matt Cassel? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I exist, I eagerly await the creation of an article on my humdrum life to date :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean I can create an article on a bit of fluff I found on my carpet this morning? I mean, that exists...or, at least it will until I get Henry out. GiantSnowman 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah cool, keep an eye out for GiantSnowman's bit of fluff to turn blue... ;) GiantSnowman 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Go right ahead! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean I can create an article on a bit of fluff I found on my carpet this morning? I mean, that exists...or, at least it will until I get Henry out. GiantSnowman 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I exist, I eagerly await the creation of an article on my humdrum life to date :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Am I the only one who initially thought that this was an article for a misspelling of Matt Cassel? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In the past, I have voted to keep some NCAA players even though they fail WP:ATHLETE due to them winning some kind of nationally-recognised award which generate some degree of media attention - unfortunately I can't do the same here. As far as the sources provided on the article go, one's a team bio (which probably counts as a primary source and therefore can't be used to confer notability), one appears to be broken (probably a mistyped link) and one seems to experiencing server problems of the 500 Error variety. The MLS page is certainly an excellent in-depth article, but I don't think that on its own is enough to establish this player as notable yet. Of the other available news hits, most of them seem to hint about his future stardom, but there's nothing which establishes his present-day notability. This article can recreated if and when he makes his pro debut. Bettia (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources provided by Nfitz establish that Matt Kassel passes WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Kessel fails WP:ATHLETE but this does not matter when he passes WP:GNG. As Davewild (talk · contribs) wrote at another AfD, "The general notability guideline supersedes any subject specific guidelines." Wikipedia:Notability (people) (which encompasses WP:ATHLETE) says that "A person is presumed notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Kassel has clearly received this coverage.
See this article from ESPN (titled Youth product Kassel looks to have bright prospects; this article is over 10 paragraphs long), this article from the Washington Post (titled Recruit Kassel Joins the Terps, At Least for Now; this article is also over 10 paragraphs long), and this article from the New York Post (titled RBNY's Matt Kassel staying at Maryland; this article is six paragraphs long). Notability is fully established due to the extent of coverage. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard's sources. WP:ATHLETE is NOT an exclusive guideline. Having long pieces in several major national media outlets indicates that he is clearly notable. matt91486 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources provided by Cunard. ArcAngel (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keith McGrath[edit]
- Keith McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable character. No references, no source, not even actor's name, nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - I don't know how notable the character is, but there is information out there about him. The character, along with a photo and name of the actor, is mentioned on the web page of the show. [74] --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references; significant reliable sources do not appear to exist. Sarilox (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deluge release history[edit]
- Deluge release history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable release history for probably not notable product. This belongs on the project developers web page, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a webhost for miscellaneous information about open source projects. Miami33139 (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. As the nominator wrote this has no place here. It's not even a good article, just a short paragraph that and a long list of badly formatted and meaningless without context log entries. All the useful information is in the article for the product. JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into Deluge (software) otherwise. A separate article on this is misguided. Haakon (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and oppose merge - These release notes belong on a developers wweeb site and not in an encyclopedia article. If there were major version upgrades that had substantive information, it should be included in the main product article, but the information here is not that. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Qin's Moon characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old Man Ban[edit]
- Old Man Ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources provided to show that this fictional character has notability. Edison (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some references, and I need to add pictures. I just need to become an autoconfirmed user. But I'm not joking. Check utube492star (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC) so pls. don't delete yet492star (talk) 07:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is a VERY important fictional CHARACTER, and if I don't start know, it'll be difficulto keep up when the more important parts come.492star (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need time, since there are very few sources. and those are in chinese. pls. hang on its hard.492star (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a chinese episode of Old Man Ban coordinating the defense of a Mohist hideout. for now its the only episode i've got, but I think you'll see the importance of this character. thanks.492star (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've added a source that shows his character.492star (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down through the google translation in the reference section, and you'll see a guy called 'Master Class' or something.. and its there. so do I get to keep this?492star (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge to Qin's Moon or List of Qin's Moon characters. Insufficient dept of out-of-universe coverage to keep as a separate article. —C.Fred (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thanks. But... I'm having trouble doing it. Is there code that I have to put?492star (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I merged it to List of Qin's Moon characters. Is it okay now?492star (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Qin's Moon characters. Ditto with other characters for this series; the list entries can and should be a bit more comprehensive, vs. a series of articles that are not. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sasha Gong[edit]
- Sasha Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsuccessful candidate for Virginia House of Delegates, who lost the election 36% to 64%. No other basis for notability. See, WP:POLITICIAN Racepacket (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet notability standards of WP:POLITICIAN. --Laurinavicius (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independant coverage of this individual outside of a failed election bid. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Angryapathy (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Sasha Gong fails WP:POLITICIAN. She gets some media coverage for meeting with Pres. Bush in 2008 but not enough for WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, and possibly request protection. (non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 00:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Janelle Pierzina[edit]
- Janelle Pierzina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Third nomination. see:
very borderline notable individual - Big Brother contestant who came third. The article is a constant target for vandals and other IP editors adding poorly sourced or extremely trivial information about her bit parts and TV appearances. Although the article is fairly free from that chaff now, another editor has suggest that this bio be brought to AfD following a bout of disruptive editing by an IP. On thinking about the suggestion, and although having watching and defending the article for many months, I kind of agree we should reconsider the place of this article in WP. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep By the generous standards of WP:BIO, whose criteria includes for entertainers those with significant "cult" following, the subject does appear to be notable. Unfortunately, article protection doesn't seem to be mentioned among the alternatives to deletion, and even more unfortunately, requests for protection are often denied on a 'not enough recent vandalism to justify' basis. Regardless, some form of defense against the poor sourcing and trivial information you correctly identify would be preferable over outright deletion. BaldPete (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage in media plus secondary appearance in All Stars, pushes over the top as far as notability. Substantial role in a very successful national TV program, makes notability fairly straight forward. Problems with editing could easily be solved with permanent semi-protection (anons and newbies are causing problems, it seems). In the past I said fix the problem instead of deletion. But I realize those doing the work of monitoring this are sick of having to do this. I don't feel like babysitting this article myself. So, my recommendation to admins is semi-protect or delete, but don't do nothing. That fact we seem to need to give up articles because of some random vandals says something seriously bad about Wikipedia. I guess it's "give up" time. --Rob (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It's not that she came in third in Big Brother, but that she's undoubtedly the most famous of all the Big Brother contestants. She was invited back to the "All Stars" episode, and every time she was on the show she won the "People's Choice" award. She's just as notable as any of the winners from Big Brother, moreso in most cases. --Wolf530 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:BIO which is enough to show notability. ArcAngel (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Die Ärzte discography . Black Kite 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hot Action Records[edit]
- Hot Action Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article is a German record label that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP, as I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. It should be noted that this label was created by, and only exists for, one band – Die Ärzte. Since this article is fundamentally redundant to Die Ärzte discography, I don't think there's much worth merging in this article, if anything. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Die Ärzte discography as 40 Google hits isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG in my book. ArcAngel (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ascended master. Black Kite 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mahatma Letters[edit]
- Mahatma Letters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a content fork of Ascended master and should be merged back or deleted as a fairly trivial definition of words (particularly considering the extensive definition of Mahātmā). Wikipedia does not benefit by having every possible variation of words or neologism anyone applied to the subject of Theosophy over the last 130 years becoming separate articles. —Ash (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V. Google Books finds more than 640 books discussing the term, including controversies about who wrote the letters, and Google Scholar finds over 240 citations and mentions. Some of the sources include mentions of notable authors such as W.B. Yeats and James Joyce who had commented on the documents. I've not studied the details, and it's clear that the article needs much improvement, but so many non-trivial mentions in books and journals indicates that the topic is notable enough for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge notable content Agree with nom that there is no compelling reason to split this off from Ascended master. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this is deleted, it should then be redirected to The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett, which is the book I thought this page would be about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since WP:RELIST precludes a third relist, this is pretty much the only option available. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War[edit]
- Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a self-declared incomplete list of links. Basically, it's a synthesized original research under a questionable title, containing no actual content whatsoever. It might as well have been a copy of the table of contents from the Second Chechen War article; the effect is the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:50, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This would probably work as part of a larger article called "Outline of Second Chechen War". Check with the folks at the outline project. Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College Preparation[edit]
- College Preparation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is surely a topic of interest for high schoolers and their parents, but it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTHOWTO is the relevant policy here, as it states: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes." I think this article violates that policy and should therefore be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides the WP:NOTHOWTO, this article is all WP:OR. Angryapathy (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 I Am Chipmunk. Since the page was redirected uncontroversially seven days ago, there's really no reason to keep this discussion open. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look For Me (Chipmunk song)[edit]
- Look For Me (Chipmunk song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no context, fails notability and WP:Crystal Alan - talk 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. It has been changed to a redirect to I Am Chipmunk, discussion should be closed. J04n(talk page) 02:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since WP:RELIST precludes a third relist, this is pretty much the only option available. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REPOhistory[edit]
- REPOhistory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability. Individual members may be notable, but even that is not asserted. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 48 Google News Results, many of them are non trivial mentions. Also there are probably some offline sources as well. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley Menendez[edit]
- Ashley Menendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable beyond appearances on Brooke Knows Best. No other non-notable castmembers from that show have individual articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Brooke Knows Best.--PinkBull 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per LibStar. Sarilox (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sufficient reliable third-party coverage. Not notable enough for an individual article, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 11:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Todd (amateur footballer)[edit]
- Lee Todd (amateur footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To me, this is classic WP:BLP1E. I fail to see how this person passes notability guidelines. There are plenty of sources mentioning this one event, but nothing apart from this. Brilliantine (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, move to Lee Todd's dismissal to describe the notable event. Andrea105 (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally think it's a pretty sad state of affairs if the event is determined to be notable, and would say WP:NOTNEWS suggests it is not. Brilliantine (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Events described in the Guinness Book of World Records seem sharply distinguished from the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that would run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could understand the existance of an article or a list relating to football records in general, but I can't see every single football guinness record (of which there are many) that has been covered by a few papers at one time or another as having viability as an individual article. Brilliantine (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere occurrence in an apparently large number of cases does not indicate non-notability: for instance, though the S&P 500 index is comprised of a sizable list of companies, each is notable as one of the largest publicly traded corporations in the United States -- see List of S&P 500 companies. Likewise, events listed in the Guinness Book of World Records which have also been chronicled significantly by other third-party reliable sources may be considered notable per se. Andrea105 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since his purported notability seems to hinge entirely on the claim that he is listed in the Guinness Book of Records, is there a source that confirms he's actually in the book? The linked Time article says "The Guinness World Book of Records said that it was the fastest red card known.", but that isn't the same as actually putting him in the book itself........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere occurrence in an apparently large number of cases does not indicate non-notability: for instance, though the S&P 500 index is comprised of a sizable list of companies, each is notable as one of the largest publicly traded corporations in the United States -- see List of S&P 500 companies. Likewise, events listed in the Guinness Book of World Records which have also been chronicled significantly by other third-party reliable sources may be considered notable per se. Andrea105 (talk) 02:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could understand the existance of an article or a list relating to football records in general, but I can't see every single football guinness record (of which there are many) that has been covered by a few papers at one time or another as having viability as an individual article. Brilliantine (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Events described in the Guinness Book of World Records seem sharply distinguished from the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that would run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this person and event fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E...any mo' for any mo'? GiantSnowman 01:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - ONEEVENT nobody. Guiness reference is trivial and not "indepth coverage".--ClubOranjeT 08:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear failure of WP:1E. --Jimbo[online] 13:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Deserves a red card I'm afraid - non-notable person and event. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Let's see: either he or the event fails Wp:ATHLETE, Wp:NOTNEWS, Wp:BLP1E, Wp:N, Wp:GNG and probably a few others as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slope stability analysis#Limit equilibrium analysis. Redirected in lieu of article improvement. Black Kite 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SLOPE/W[edit]
- SLOPE/W (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a slope stability analysis program sold by GEO-SLOPE International. No minimal showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it appears to be a significant program for the geo engineering. There is even detailed treatment on its use [75]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Defer - there is a real problem here in trying to judge notability merely by google hits. This is a well-known and well-used bit of software in a very narrow field. Yes, the article is poor, but it is not incapable of improvement - someone may like to add details of how the software works (as far as I know it is a finite element model based on soil mechanics) and some case studies. If in a year's time the article still doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia, then it could be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs)
- Delete If this needs a year for improvement then how about the article gets recreated in a year? WP:V says if an article can't be sourced to third parties, we shouldn't have one. Miami33139 (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - [76] is a detailed study of SLOPE/W compared to Jakobson method. [77] is one of several programs identified for comparison. This may need an expert editor, but the sources do seem to be out there to indicate that this is important software the geo engineering field. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Slope stability analysis#Limit equilibrium analysis. That article section discusses this software better than this articles does. There's no need for a separate stub about the software when it can be described in context within that other article. Fences&Windows 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clipcanvas[edit]
- Clipcanvas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable company. Could not find any coverage at all. Article by WP:SPA. Haakon (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are a couple of of news articles in Norwegian, but they only seem to say that the company was nominated for an award. Nomination for a national award does not confer notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surkhaili[edit]
- Surkhaili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find nothing in reliable sources to verify even the existence of this tribe. It is not mentioned at Baffa#Tribes either.
I prodded, and the deprodder put a note at the end of the article: "Refeferance is gazeteer of hazara 1907 and " BANDOBAST" of lands of mansehra of 1905 according to castes and shajarahs of different swati tribes." I'm not convinced; without better sources we can't write an article on this topic. Fences&Windows 00:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. I also did a bit of google searching and could not find any WP:V coverage of this tribe. Does not pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from my talk page. Fences&Windows 00:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surkhailis are a big branch of the Swatis of Hazara division majority of them residing in the town of Baffa, if you have any doubt then you better visit a famous book called The "history of Hazara" by Dr Sher Bahadur Khan panni, further I will recommend you to see couple of books of british author as "Hazara Gazetteer", those were being written in 1887 and 1907 when pashtuns and their allies struggling for freedom against Britishers. Haider (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW... Tone 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Townsend[edit]
- Paul Townsend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
notability? article was speedy deleted once before. Alan - talk 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Paul Townsend is a notable string theorist (particularly stuff related M-theory). He coined the amusing phrase "p-branes" (referring to membranes of more than two dimensions). He is mentioned in numerous reliable sources (example, example, example). -- Scjessey (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's a Fellow of the Royal Society, and his articles have been cited hundreds of times and his h-index is somewhere over 30.[78] He helped found M-theory with Ed Witten.[79]"Paul+Townsend" Fences&Windows 01:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, I get 71 as his GS h-index. Way beyond the numbers at which any disagreement typically occurs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The FRS saves us from any work digging for more debatable evidence of notability; it's a clear pass of WP:PROF #3. But if we do dig, there's plenty more: his paper Unity of superstring dualities has over 1000 citations in Google scholar, and even his tenth most cited has over 300; that's a clear pass of #1, as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep on basis (at least) of cites and FRS. Nominations as inappropriate as this one waste the time of editors. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as article creator) per Special:Whatlinkshere/Paul Townsend. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- the article which was speedy-deleted before was about a musician named Paul Townsend, claimed to be Pete's younger brother. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. FRS, very high citability, more than enough to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. As David Eppstein points out, his status as a Royal Society Fellow (FRS) is a definitive clincher – proof of this status is furnished at the Royal Society Fellows membership roll page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Greatest Hits (Foreigner album)[edit]
- Complete Greatest Hits (Foreigner album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NALBUMS nothing but a track listing, fails notability as most "best of" albums do Alan - talk 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my experience, the conventional wisdom is that an officially released album by a notable band means that the album is notable as well. In this case, the album in question has the additional benefit of having charted at number 80 on the U.S. Billboard 200. I can't find a whole lot in terms of in-depth coverage by reliable sources; here are a couple short reviews by Allmusic and Chart Attack. Gongshow Talk 06:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep As per Gongshow's comments and references above. He both presents a case for it to be kept, but a case for it not to be kept. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Gongshow above. I just added a stub tag to the article, because that's what it really needs. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Charted, reviewed album by notable band seals the deal for me. Hekerui (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gongshow. --Europe22 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:NALBUMS, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." No reason this album would not qualify. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Another waste of time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 23:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flea Market Montgomery[edit]
- Flea Market Montgomery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Literally all of the coverage (besides one very trivial mention from 2004) comes from a brief flurry between late 2006 and early 2007 briefly brought both the flea market and video to attention. As proven in the past, a very brief flurry of news coverage doesn't mean long-term notability. There has been absolutely no coverage since the last AFD in 2008, which was closed as "no consensus" after only one week. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the coverage in WP:RS cited meets WP:GNG; notability is permanent. Andrea105 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage of this subject seems to exceed, in both quantity and duration, the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that would run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a flash-in-the-pan flurry of notability for the owner doesn't really lead to lingering fame for the business itself, to my eyes; sure, the owner was on some high-profile TV shows, but since then there's been nothing at all. I know we don't have a "one event" corollary to the business notability guidelines, but if we did this would certainly be a place where it would be applied. Perhaps there could be a mention of this on the List of internet phenomena and a redirect there, however? Tony Fox (arf!) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The flea market itself is not notable... the subject of the meme and the business are quite easily separably discussed. As to the meme itself, I would argue that if WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply, WP:WEB does. To wit, "For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance." I don't mean to make an argument about the wording of the guidelines, but please note the "and". Furthermore, most of the coverage winds up bringing indiscriminate information to the article; the VH1 video for example focuses almost solely on Stephens. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete smaller than the usual size we keep shopping centers of various sorts, if seen in that light the one hand, and not important enough as a meme if seen that way. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per --Oakshade's excellent explanation in the first go round at AFD. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which doesn't exactly address all the points of this discussion, in particular that what little coverage there is neither passes WP:NOT#NEWS nor permits content which passes WP:IINFO. Notability is a guideline; not all items which fail should be deleted, and similarly not all items which pass should be kept. Moreover, looking at the coverage through the lens of WP:RECENTISM, we should be asking whether such a slavish interpretation of WP:GNG is really appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article needs some tidying up but there seems to have been enough coverage due to the advert to give it notability. Mah favourite (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Underdog (Atlanta Rhythm Section album)[edit]
- Underdog (Atlanta Rhythm Section album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NALBUMS lacks notability for it's own article, it's just a track listing Alan - talk 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's true that the article in its current state is essentially "just a track listing". However, this is an officially released album by a notable band, and per WP:NALBUMS, that is generally enough on its own to warrant an individual article. Additionally, this album has at least a couple more factors working in its favor: it charted at number 26 on the U.S. Billboard 200, and it was certified gold by the RIAA. Gongshow Talk 06:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a notable album. These nominations are getting tiresome.--Michig (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:NALBUMS as an officially released album by a notable artist. Plus it charted If it were just a track listing (which it is not) it would be a candidate for merge (per WP:NALBUMS), not delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Emphatically agree w/Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Hitch-Hiker[edit]
- Sweet Hitch-Hiker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not a very notable song, even though the band is very notable. Also no context in article, or cites/references Alan - talk 00:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added references to the article to establish its notability (top 10 single in the US, top 40 single in the UK). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Metropolitan90's work. According to the WP:NSONGS standards, the song is "probably notable" as a result of its chart appearances. In addition, there now appears to be just enough "verifiable material" to support an independent article, which is my preference here over a merge into CCR's article. Gongshow Talk 07:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable.--Michig (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per work added above. Notability is confirmed. --Fbifriday (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Most definitely notable. Only reference to definition of "Greasy King" --Hyperion1961 (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:NM --Europe22 (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A cursory effort at WP:BEFORE would show that the song charted (e.g., [80]) so passes WP:NSONGS, and there are obviously plenty of sources to satisfy WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | Talk 00:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical Reaction (artscene group)[edit]
- Chemical Reaction (artscene group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability, only primary source info. Basically a dozen people who hang out on EFnet and occasionally make ascii art. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sources found for this group after a relatively exhaustive search, therefore notability cannot be established. In a previous AfD, the creator of the article asserted that the group was in fact notable, but reliable sources would be hard to come by because this art form happened exclusively outside the coverage of the mainstream media. If these artists took such great pains to keep their work out of the mainstream media, then I doubt they would want to see a WP article about themselves. WP's definition of notability requires independent, third-party, verifiable references. If something took place on Earth that did not get covered by such a source, then it is not notable by WP's definition, and does not deserve an article. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound? SnottyWong talk 00:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no coverage in reliable sources, no article. Andrea105 (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lunatic Fringe (song)[edit]
- Lunatic Fringe (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NSONGS doesn't seem to have anything notable about it, barely fits WP:STUB Alan - talk 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —NellieBly (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with comment: I can't find any 1981 Canadian charts on the web, but this was an amazingly popular song and still plays in rotation on some stations. It was the best-known single on a platinum-selling album. The article doesn't do the subject justice, I'll agree. I've added this discussion to the list of Canada-related deletion discussions to get more eyes on it, preferably from someone who has better resources than I do and who can find out if the song charted. However, this song was immensely popular and still gets regular airplay, so I simply can't agree that it isn't notable. --NellieBly (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Billboard September 1981 issue has this song charting at #60 on the Rock Radio Airplay chart, so clearly it was in pretty heavy rotation nationally in the US. Also, the song was awarded a SOCAN Classic award for achieving the 100,000-airplay mark on (Canadian) domestic radio. The song was also well-known for being used in the film Vision Quest and the TV series Miami Vice.(AMG)--Canley (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These newly-dug-up references should be added to the article itself — I've seen it happen far, far too often that people find enough references to support notability, but they get shown off in the AFD discussion while the article itself never actually gets improved at all. But they do certainly support a keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources provided by Canley. Agree with Bearcat that the article needs work and these refs should be added. IOW, expansion is the answer here, not deletion. Gongshow Talk 17:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Gongshow. DigitalC (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gongshow; note it also charted to #70 in Canada in 1997 (added to article). -M.Nelson (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep. Per all of the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gongshow and M.nelson. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jewish views of marriage. NW (Talk) 21:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism[edit]
- Conjugal obligations and rights in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage because it's a clear-cut violation of Wikipedia:Content forking of Jewish MARRIAGE laws and customs ("conjugal/marital" = "marriage"!) All content should be merged into the main Jewish views of marriage article where there is more than enough room. Parts of this article also border on Wikipedia:Libel with offensive and pejorative archaic terms (albeit maybe misguidedly taken from old encyclopedias) like: "the wife is treated as a posesssion owned by her husband"; "In biblical times, a wife was regarded as chattel"; "husband was ba'al, literally meaning lord...meaning lorded over"; "As a polygynous society, the Israelites did not exhibit any laws which imposed marital fidelity on men" that do NOT portray an accurate picture of Israelite society and certainly not of Judaism's and the Torah's view of marriage. There are also clear undertones of deliberate violations of WP:NOR and a subtle undermining of WP:NPOV in portraying the Jewish view of marriage as something less than ideal and even outright barbaric by modern standards. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage and edit all pejoratives as per above. IZAK (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. I like the content but it needs to be trimmed waaaaay down to "Just the facts, Ma'am" and merged with general articles about Jewish marriage. I don't think the topic warrants its own article. Joe407 (talk) 11:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the Jewish Views of Marriage. I don't think there needs to be another article, when this article clearly falls into Jewish views of Marriage. Yossiea (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. There is some salvageable information in this article, but it undoubtedly belongs in Jewish views of marriage. I've already removed the New Testament sources, which were somewhat ridiculous given the title, and much of the data seems to be based on cursory readings of the 1903 encyclopedia. We should take the notable portions not already discussed in the JVoM article and place them there, and then get rid of this one. Avi (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. Per above. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a small article and well-sourced. I think it is a legitimate split-off from Jewish views of marriage, which is quite large and already has received some merges of late. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the "pejorative statements" are sourced and actually correct. And the wording is not POV, because no value is being given to the statements. In any case, disagreement with content is not a reason for a merge. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chattel", for example, is a gross oversimplification. There are kinyanim that exist in a marriage--it has both a sacramental and a transactional component, but to claim the woman is considered "property" of her husband is a misrepresentation of the various kinyanim the husband may have in her property (Nichsei Melug, Nichsei Tzon barzel), her work product (Maase Yadeha as a return on the responsibility to support), or sexually (Permitted to him, forbidden to others, he becomes asur in various of her realtives, Chamesh Esrei Tzaros, etc. ). These clarifications can, and do, belong in Jewish views of marriage; not misrepresentations in a separate article, in my opinions. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you about that one. That is a little extreme. But the others are neutrally worded and neutrally represented. If anything is misrepresented, you can always fix this article. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chattel" is the term used in the source. Personally I find the word a little archaic - its rarely used in the UK these days - but I can't go against the source, because to do so would be OR. And that bit does say in biblical times not in Jewish religious law as written down in the 2nd-5th centuries, and later. Newman Luke (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newman, that is just one perspective, from your' WP:POV, but the fact of the matter is that traditional Judaism was not and is not the way you portray it in such stark negative terms. Women were granted extraordinary powers and rights by the Torah, that removed them from being chattel and made them into the co-equals if not the superiors of their men-folk. This is is all detailed in the Torah as you may well know and to deny that borders on violating WP:LIBEL against an entire entire nation that has been called the Ohr LaGoyim (Light Unto the Nations), but it's not apparant from the way the archaic encyclopedia you are so fond of tries to do the opposite. IZAK (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its what the source say. I wouldn't use the term chattel if I could express my own POV; as I said, I find the term archaic. If someone is granted ... powers and rights... that means there must have been a time when these rights and powers did not exist, and furthermore if its the Talmud that grants them the right, before the Talmud must be the time when they didn't have them. Now, if you'd care to read the sentence properly it clearly states in biblical times. By no stretch whatsoever can Biblical times be made to refer to after the Talmud, or even close to it. Newman Luke (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chattel" is the term used in the source. Personally I find the word a little archaic - its rarely used in the UK these days - but I can't go against the source, because to do so would be OR. And that bit does say in biblical times not in Jewish religious law as written down in the 2nd-5th centuries, and later. Newman Luke (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you about that one. That is a little extreme. But the others are neutrally worded and neutrally represented. If anything is misrepresented, you can always fix this article. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chattel", for example, is a gross oversimplification. There are kinyanim that exist in a marriage--it has both a sacramental and a transactional component, but to claim the woman is considered "property" of her husband is a misrepresentation of the various kinyanim the husband may have in her property (Nichsei Melug, Nichsei Tzon barzel), her work product (Maase Yadeha as a return on the responsibility to support), or sexually (Permitted to him, forbidden to others, he becomes asur in various of her realtives, Chamesh Esrei Tzaros, etc. ). These clarifications can, and do, belong in Jewish views of marriage; not misrepresentations in a separate article, in my opinions. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the "pejorative statements" are sourced and actually correct. And the wording is not POV, because no value is being given to the statements. In any case, disagreement with content is not a reason for a merge. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Debresser: This article clearly violates WP:CONTENTFORK, i.e. "Policy in a nutshell: Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject" -- and that is precisely what this new article does, it projects a terrible and demeaning picture of Jewish women in marriage and not the way they are portrayed in the Hebrew Bible or in any of the Talmudic or Halachic sources that demand the dignity of women and speaks of their elevated spiritual status often higher than that of men even over that of their spouses. Judaism enacted the first laws granting women rights in marriage unlike any other ancient religions or cultures that treated women no better than slaves. What don't I get? IZAK (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not my opinion that this article was created to advocate any opinion, since I see the information here as basically correct. Therefore, I don't think this falls within the definition of a contentfork. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is simply based on a Jewish Encyclopedia article - if you check the first edit you'll see a direct unwikified copy of the public domain text. The article there is called husband and wife; I merely chose a less ambiguous title. As far as I know the JE didn't create that article to advance any position, and I certainly haven't added any changes with the intent to do so. Furthermore, since the JE was clearly written by Jewish individuals, many of whom were thus presumably married to Jewish women, I hardly think it had the intent of presenting a demeaning picture of Jewish women in marriage. I don't think you are showing much good faith, IZAK.
- Also, I have to say that I don't find it to present a demeaning picture, quite the opposite in fact. If you read the lead paragraph, it clearly points out that Jewish women were (in the view of the source - the JE article) treated better than women in the marriages of other religions nearby. In fact, it points out that on almost every occasion they intervened, the rabbis made the lot of women less bothersome, not more so. You should read the article more carefully. Newman Luke (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not my opinion that this article was created to advocate any opinion, since I see the information here as basically correct. Therefore, I don't think this falls within the definition of a contentfork. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do properly with modern sources and a full consideration of traditional ones (and the restriction of century old views on this topic to a historical section of how the topic has been viewed in the past). . I agree with IZAK about the sloppy way this was done. . But the overall topic of Jewish views of marriage is a large part of the talmud, and much to large to deal with in one article. I have never figured out the desire to not discuss religion in encyclopedic detail. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage, as this is a clearcut case of WP:CONTENTFORK violation. -- Nahum (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect This is an article that includes a significant amount if material that belongs in the parent article itself. Alansohn (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete distorted, misleading content, Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Its not content forking. Its mainly based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article Husband and Wife - [81]. You'd be able to see that for yourself if you care to check the first edit - [82]. Also, there's just not enough space in Jewish views of marriage. Furthermore:
- I really don't see what's objectionable about pointing out that in ancient Judaism Baal-marriage was practised. Its a perfectly ordinary anthropological term; Baal does mean lord, and it does mean lord in this context. And its what the JE says.
- The source article in the encyclopedia does say the wife was treated as chattel. In fact, it explicitly uses the word chattel to state this. What's offensive about that? Lots of cultures did that, there's nothing out of the ordinary about it, in historic terms.
- What's offensive about saying the Israelites were polygynous (one man has many wives). There's nothing disputed about that fact, surely? Is IZAK trying to claim that Jacob only had one wife now?
- Nor can I see what's offensive about mentioning that there was no requirement for Israelite men to have marital fidelity? That's simply what the JE article on adultery says. In fact, if you study the Torah's laws, (a) a man can have multiple wives, (b) if a man has sex with an unmarried woman it constitutes betrothal; in other words, (a) and (b) combine to make it utterly impossible and meaningless for a man to be accused of being unfaithful to a wife of his. In other words, as the article says, because they were polygynous, there were no laws imposing fidelity on men.
- Newman Luke (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Response to Newman Luke: Kindly don't twist my words! (1) In the Torah=Judaism, men are told to listen to their wives and take heed of their words. Hence, Abraham is told by God to follow Sarah; Isaac accedes to Rebecca's plan; Jacob accepts Leah's wishes and listens to Rachel; Moses folows Tziporah's instructions ete etc; (2) "Chatel" is just NOT accurate and it's a lie to call Jewish women the "chatel" of their husbands. Maybe other cultures had it but not ever officialy in Jewish history. To say so reveals ignorance of Torah Judaism. (3) No, IZAK is not saying that Jacob had only one wife, he had four or 2 wives + 2 handmaidens ("common law wives"). In any case, it was before the Torah and its compulsory laws was given, a key point of the difference between before mattan Torah and after mattan Torah, it's a foundation in Torah studies. Note: The fact that the Torah does allow for more than one wife, does not mean that Judaism meant to say that it was a hunting season for men to grab as many women as they liked and that the poor women were therefore "chatel" or whatnot. (4) You are creating your own theories and thereby violating WP:NOR when you claim that the Torah "allows" things simply because it "does not forbid them". You are not on the level of a classical commentator to do that. You are making the wrong connections as you paint a picture of Israelite men acting like a bunch of pirates and Vikings when the opposite is true that the Torah was the first set of complicated laws demanding that Jewish men treat their wives with utmost dignity and set down laws and guidelines for that to be achieved. (5) Hey, is this an article about Judaism's views on polygamy or is it an article about "Conjugal obligations and rights"? Because for the bulk of its history and for almost all its men, Judaism has been the world's first and leading monogomous religion, even though it may have allowed for more than one wife in THEORY, men were discouraged and stopped from doing it. Again, what is your point exactly, to drag the Torah, the Israelites and Judaism through the mud, or to create a well-balanced picture that takes into serious consideration the entire corpus of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah that says the opposite of what you allege as you spin your never-ending theories? IZAK (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) You are spouting original research. You are trying to contest a cited source with original research. That's just not allowed. (2) You are spouting original research. You are trying to contest a cited source with original research. That's just not allowed. (3) Does this statement have any point? (4) No, I am copying directly from a highly respected reliable source, wikifying it, and then slighlty re-arranging it because the source doesn't readily break up into wiki-manual-of-style-recommended section structures. It is YOU that is creating your own theories. I have yet to see you cite a single reliable source (or unreliable source, for that matter) in relation to absolutely anything you contest against me. (5) According to Jewish literature, Judaism only officially imposed monogamy in the early middle ages (some time around 1100 if I remember correctly), so unless you are claiming that Judaism didn't exist before the 2nd century AD, you'll have to conclude that Judaism wasn't monogamous for most of its history. And I'm fairly sure that bigamy was illegal in a number of Christian countries before the middle ages, so it can't have been the first either.Newman Luke (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In Response to Newman Luke: Kindly don't twist my words! (1) In the Torah=Judaism, men are told to listen to their wives and take heed of their words. Hence, Abraham is told by God to follow Sarah; Isaac accedes to Rebecca's plan; Jacob accepts Leah's wishes and listens to Rachel; Moses folows Tziporah's instructions ete etc; (2) "Chatel" is just NOT accurate and it's a lie to call Jewish women the "chatel" of their husbands. Maybe other cultures had it but not ever officialy in Jewish history. To say so reveals ignorance of Torah Judaism. (3) No, IZAK is not saying that Jacob had only one wife, he had four or 2 wives + 2 handmaidens ("common law wives"). In any case, it was before the Torah and its compulsory laws was given, a key point of the difference between before mattan Torah and after mattan Torah, it's a foundation in Torah studies. Note: The fact that the Torah does allow for more than one wife, does not mean that Judaism meant to say that it was a hunting season for men to grab as many women as they liked and that the poor women were therefore "chatel" or whatnot. (4) You are creating your own theories and thereby violating WP:NOR when you claim that the Torah "allows" things simply because it "does not forbid them". You are not on the level of a classical commentator to do that. You are making the wrong connections as you paint a picture of Israelite men acting like a bunch of pirates and Vikings when the opposite is true that the Torah was the first set of complicated laws demanding that Jewish men treat their wives with utmost dignity and set down laws and guidelines for that to be achieved. (5) Hey, is this an article about Judaism's views on polygamy or is it an article about "Conjugal obligations and rights"? Because for the bulk of its history and for almost all its men, Judaism has been the world's first and leading monogomous religion, even though it may have allowed for more than one wife in THEORY, men were discouraged and stopped from doing it. Again, what is your point exactly, to drag the Torah, the Israelites and Judaism through the mud, or to create a well-balanced picture that takes into serious consideration the entire corpus of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah that says the opposite of what you allege as you spin your never-ending theories? IZAK (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lean Keep - All religions have ugly histories, and the article does take pains to note how much of the original biblical law was supplemented by the Talmud and rabbinical authority to even the scales of marriage. The information is interesting and relevant, and merging most of it into Jewish views of marriage would actually be worse; either you discard most of the information, or you risk making modern Judaism look backwards like you claim the article itself does. At least here is largely historical; mixing it with Jewish views of marriage would make it easy to misread it as modern practice. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 23:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow: It is demeaning to state that the Hebrew Bible=Judaism has "ugly histories" and the point is that the sources in the article are point blank wrong and biased against the very subject they write about. They wrote as secular scholars and as biblical critics often with no sense of the true meaning of the passages in the Bible or how they were applied. There was no "ugly" stage in Judaism. In fact it was provably better to start out with and it declined with time, the opposite of what one imagines. The Bible is filled with passages honoring Jewish and non-Jewish women, such as Sarah; Rebecca; Rachel; Leah; Yocheved; Miriam; Tzipporah; and in the Tanakh Ruth; Naomi; Esther; Yael; Chana; Bathsheba and many others, this is way before the times of the Talmud and they are role models for all Jewish and gentile women until the present time. IZAK (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IZAK, when are you ever going to cite a reliable source that says that those people wrote often with no sense of the true meaning of .....? Or are you the king of person that just wants to push their own pov all the time?Newman Luke (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Izak, saying that all religions have ugly histories is hardly controversial. And defining Judaism as the Torah alone is wishful thinking, since it's interpreted by fallible men; last I checked, only certain fundamentalist Christian denominations try to claim that every word is literally true and their interpretation is flawless. Part of what I like about Judaism is the relentless study and questioning of the meaning of the Torah; intellectual rigor is hardly a bad thing. That said, many of the the events that transpire within the Torah would be considered barbaric or backwards if viewed by many modern standards (e.g. genocide, death penalty for homosexuality, etc.). I'm not saying that ancient Judaism is uniquely backwards (if anything, a religion with this much history would be expected to have far more skeletons in the closet). But pointing to examples of successful women and claiming they completely erase the explicit laws laid down in other parts of the Torah is disingenuous. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 18:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shadow: It is demeaning to state that the Hebrew Bible=Judaism has "ugly histories" and the point is that the sources in the article are point blank wrong and biased against the very subject they write about. They wrote as secular scholars and as biblical critics often with no sense of the true meaning of the passages in the Bible or how they were applied. There was no "ugly" stage in Judaism. In fact it was provably better to start out with and it declined with time, the opposite of what one imagines. The Bible is filled with passages honoring Jewish and non-Jewish women, such as Sarah; Rebecca; Rachel; Leah; Yocheved; Miriam; Tzipporah; and in the Tanakh Ruth; Naomi; Esther; Yael; Chana; Bathsheba and many others, this is way before the times of the Talmud and they are role models for all Jewish and gentile women until the present time. IZAK (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Jewish views of marriage. The subject of the article would seem to have Jewish views of marriage as a proper context. Bus stop (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- VERY IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CLOSING ADMIN - IZAK has been WP:MEATPUPPETing - [83], and many of the above votes may therefore need to be discounted. Newman Luke (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, you mean canvassing, not meatpuppeting. Secondly, talk page notices are not only allowed, but encouraged. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly notices. -- Avi (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, excuse me Newman, but placing a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, the very project devoted to this subject, is by no means any form of what you allege. You, and anyone, are welome to join in and place any of the hundreds of "Please see" notes that get placed there all the time. By the way, desperation is not a substiture for logic and WP:AGF. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Placing a note is fine. Placing a note and implying that people should vote a certain way is entirely forbidden - WP:MEATPUPPET defines it as meatpuppetry.
- Its amazing, when you think about it, how many of the people voting to merge have a hebrew language userbox on their userpage...Newman Luke (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Truly amazing, one would think that these people may actually know something about Judaism, its laws, and its traditions. Astounding . -- Avi (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because such people wouldn't necessarily discover this article so rapidly. However, people viewing the place where IZAK appealed for Meatpuppets would. And people reading at that location are more likely than those in general to know Hebrew. In other words, I'm pointing out that the demographic here is abnormally and suspiciously high towards Hebrew-speakers, suggestive of their having arrived here via IZAK's meatpuppet request. And therefore that they should be discounted.Newman Luke (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what talk page notices are for, Newman, and it stands to reason that there is a correlation between interest in Judaism and knowledge of Hebrew (the language of Judaism) - for how better to understand than to read original sources :) . But 'tis a wiki truism, when an argument fails on merit, break out the accusations of cabalism. I believe large chunks of Raul's Laws relate to that phenomenon. -- Avi (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an absolutely huge difference between saying you might be interested in this and saying this editor has been up to his nefarious tricks again, see this; the latter is an attempt to seek Meatpuppets, and the latter is exactly what IZAK did here. Newman Luke (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And in relation to your more specific point, my point is that if people came to this AfD via the AfD page, or via the sexuality wikiproject (its the closest wikiproject to the subject of 'marriage'), or via the sociology wikiproject, or via finding the article by encountering it while reading pages, they are less likely to be the kind of person who'd know hebrew, than they are if they came here via IZAK's meatpuppetry. And since there is an abnormally high number of people here who indicate on their pages that they know hebrew, this suggests they came here via IZAK's meatpuppetry, rather than via one of the other routes.Newman Luke (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, how diabolical and nefarious that Izak ... posted a link on the Judaism Project page. Outrageous. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This notice is actually far from neutral. Saying that the article is "POV-pushing" and "depicting Judaism in negative lights" in a notice is clearly inappropriate per WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. Tim Song (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Truly amazing, one would think that these people may actually know something about Judaism, its laws, and its traditions. Astounding . -- Avi (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newman, when will you stop personlizing the discussions and focusing on me and deal with the real issues at hand which is your clearly-stated intention to totally obliterate any views you don't like, particularly if you suspect they may be coming from an "Orthodox" perspective as you have made abundantly clear again and again on your talk page and elsewhere, as an example please review User talk:Newman Luke#What do you mean by this? and more. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirct to Jewish views of marriage. Present article(s) appear to be some sort of WP:CONTENTFORK. --nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Looks like a content fork to me - in particular an attempt to create a similar article with a different viewpoint, something very much frowned upon here. The notice on the project page was worded badly, I agree. But that doesn't invalidate anyone's opinion. As for Debresser's comment, sometimes I despair. It isn't funny. And in the interests of transparency, I am not Jewish although there is a family story that I have a great-grandfather, or maybe a great-great grandfather, who was a French Canadian Jewish lumberjack. Oh, I don't know Hebrew either. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per nom. WP:CONTENTFORK. Shlomke (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.