Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 7
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PriMus[edit]
- PriMus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find any real evidence of notability. COntested Prod, with Prod removed with reason "just as notable as many in Category:Scorewriters." A search on +Primus +Scorewriter turns up practically nothing. There is a review attached to the article, but I don't know if it's a significant publication or if the review is enough to justify notability. I will concede that finding reliable news coverage, reviews etc is made more difficult by the fact it is a very common product name, there is a lot of Primus out there. If someone can find better than I, and can prove notability then so be it. Canterbury Tail talk 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PriMus is a quit new product. So it is evident that there is not so much information. But if you spell PriMus with a capital M you'll get more results on the web. For users who worked with other scorewriters before, the release of PriMus meant a little revolution... There are features that are unique! So I do find evidence of notability. Columbus Soft is a small Software Inc. that does not invest in Marketing or advertising. I am Betatester of this notation program, that is why I know about the Mac release or the success at school usage. I already tried but it is hard to proove that by third party sources... these kind of information is normally announced via intern mails. Do you have a proposal how to manage this problem? Maybe I delete these sentences until there will be a public announce on their webpage!? Cachsten (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an encyclopedia Wikipedia relies on citations from reliable, secondary sources. Although PriMus may be notable to you, Wikipedia needs citations that qualify for its own article. If the article is deleted, Wikipedia still has some basic information about PriMus on List of scorewriters. --dbolton (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PriMus is a quit new product. So it is evident that there is not so much information. But if you spell PriMus with a capital M you'll get more results on the web. For users who worked with other scorewriters before, the release of PriMus meant a little revolution... There are features that are unique! So I do find evidence of notability. Columbus Soft is a small Software Inc. that does not invest in Marketing or advertising. I am Betatester of this notation program, that is why I know about the Mac release or the success at school usage. I already tried but it is hard to proove that by third party sources... these kind of information is normally announced via intern mails. Do you have a proposal how to manage this problem? Maybe I delete these sentences until there will be a public announce on their webpage!? Cachsten (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the article has been improved and corrected many times. It contains important information about engraving and the notation software PriMus. So I do not see a reason to delete this article. There is no continuative information on the List of scorewriters about PriMus. 78.55.71.73 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no indication of notability in the article, no independent reliable sources, no references to support it being notable per WP:Notability. Canterbury Tail talk 21:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the article has been improved and corrected many times. It contains important information about engraving and the notation software PriMus. So I do not see a reason to delete this article. There is no continuative information on the List of scorewriters about PriMus. 78.55.71.73 (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's unclear that the one review is from a reliable sources, but there are no others. The software may become notable int he future, but it does not appear to be so right now. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like nice software, but it's not quite notable enough yet. Thparkth (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and that this list is not a DIRECTORY (same as last AfD). Mike Cline (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of computer system manufacturers[edit]
- List of computer system manufacturers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
For a time this list was maintained, amongst others by myself as per the criterias set on the talkpage. As it looks today however, it has become a huge list of possibly non-notable entries. As the only inclusion criterias used to be that there was an article about the companies listed, the list could easily be replaced by a category. Unless anyone can come up with some useful inclusion criterias, as well as any other content to keep in the list, I believe that we're better off by deleting it. Bjelleklang - talk 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bjelleklang.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination's objection is to particular entries and this is best addressed by editing the article in the usual way rather than by deletion, per WP:BEFORE. A category is not an acceptable replacement per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now; I tagged it with "rewrite". This list has info not easy to give in categories alone. It's probably better to split it (either in separate lists or subsections) in order reorganize it though. First, "computer system manufacturers" is too general. Do embedded systems count? Can't tell from the article or talk page. It should be divided by mainframe / personal computers etc. Second, it needs reogranization w.r.t. the status of the company. For instance, I added RCA and General Electric to the "defunct" section (both were mainframe mfgs.), but this isn't entirely right, as GE surely is not defunct (it just doesn't produce general purpose computers anymore), and even the RCA label/trademark is still in use after chuncks of the company were sold to other corporations (by GE, isn't that confusing?!) Look at List_of_computer_hardware_manufacturers or List of laptop brands and manufacturers for comparison. If we just nuke the whole material, it will make it more difficult for editors to produce more organized list. Pcap ping 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The usual inclusion criteria for this sort of list is, at minimum, being notable enough for a stand-alone non-redirect Wikipedia article, as per WP:LSC and WP:WTAF. If there's non-notable entries there, remove them if they're redlinks, or afd the entries. If the topic's too broad, and I concede that it might be, split it, perhaps into List of desktop computer manufacturers, List of embedded system manufacturers, etc. —Korath (Talk) 20:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it adds value over the category (at least in the defunct section) and has potential for further improvement. Polarpanda (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why "in the defunct section"? We don't remove articles about companies just because they're defunct.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Categories don't describe why the mfg is important, redlines can always be removed, this article provides a bridge between the history of computing - defines it specifically to manufacturers - instead of just a categorical list. Timmccloud (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and of course remove the ones that do not have WP articles or that are obviously qualified for them--in which case one should be written. That someone need actually say that a listing of computer manufacturers is a important thing before we can have one here is not reasonable. a list of notable examples of a notable topic is a suitable article. 2 time 2 = 4 is not OR, and that's all we're doing here. (BTW, is Gavin asserting nobody has ever compoiled a list of computer manufacturers? We could undoubtedly find them, but its not the least necessary) DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Bunney[edit]
- Mike Bunney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Campaign bio of a candidate in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 who didn't succeed in gaining election last night; simply being a candidate is not a legitimate claim of notability under WP:POLITICIAN unless the person (a) wins, or (b) would already be notable enough for an article even if they hadn't stood as a candidate. The only source present is the Labour Party's website, which simply lists him as the candidate in North Dorset and doesn't provide any information about him beyond that; just being able to confirm that a person exists is not the same thing as demonstrating actual notability. I had previously prodded this, but that was disputed by the creator on grounds that included "I know the guy", as if being a friend of a Wikipedian was a valid claim of notability or a legitimate defense against original research. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as clear WP:POLITICIAN. Asking a question on Question Time is far from notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete He did not even get 3000 votes at the general election. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete anyone can appear on question time or pay the £500 necessary for standing for parliament, notability requires much more and he fails WP:POLITICIAN by a long way.
- Delete, barely above the threshold for speedy deletion as not claiming notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, as per everyone above. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boxercraft Incorporated[edit]
- Boxercraft Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copy/paste from their website, advert/promotion/conflict of interest. Fails WP:CORP, as I could only find this news article with merely a brief mention of the company. ~EdGl! 23:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The copy/paste was a copyright violation that should have been removed immediately. I'm not sure if you checked google news beyond the last month, but there are more hits in the archive. I'm not really sure what Wearables Business is or whether it counts as a reliable source.--BelovedFreak 09:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the "sources" appear to be based on press releases. The company's sole claim to notability seems to be that its catalog won an "American Graphic Design Award," but I can't find anything indicating that's a noteworthy achievement, and that award doesn't seem to have gotten attention from independent sources. Just another company trying to use Wikipedia for promotion.... they're a bigger problem for the project than vandals, in my opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Copyvio, WP:PROMO - should have been CSD's and salted if necessary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pirate Party UK. Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Robinson (UK politician)[edit]
- Andrew Robinson (UK politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Candidate in UK 2010 election who received 173 votes. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 22:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't pass POLITICIAN, but Merge to Pirate Party UK. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pirate Party UK - what coverage there is in reliable sources is as leader of this party, and current article is very short so no need for separate article. Qwfp (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as others have said. Failed polictical candidates are normally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since he meets the GNG, but failing that, a merge is an acceptable alternative. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pirate Party UK - he's not yet notable independent of his party. There's very little material here to merge anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Bellamy[edit]
- Chris Bellamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find any coverage for this person. Prod was removed by an IP but no reliable sources have been found. Jafeluv (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look particularly notable. PatGallacher (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searches in music sources have turned up nothing to demonstrate notability and the article has been flagged for a few weeks without any such evidence being added. AllyD (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Before commenting or discussing matters at AfD, I conduct online searches, and found lots of possible sources at Google, Yahoo music, and Bing. Rescue, please. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found some news mention of him. [1] [2] And many more results that appear to be him. [3] Got a picture of him in some articles. [4] He is part of an award winning band it seems. Dream Focus 01:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, the photo from Watertown Daily Times is of a Clayton Bellamy from an award-winning Canadian band? Beyond that, I'm unconvinced that the searches are not picking up multiple musicians of the same name in different places. But the Virginian Pilot reference is clearly the article subject, leaving the question of whether it is sufficient to establish notability? AllyD (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a picture of the Virginia-based Chris Bellamy of this article at christopherbellamy.com (and the page text is more or less the same as on the Wikipedia article); he's not the same person as the Carolina/Florida-based guitarist/fisherman who has the domain chrisbellamy.com (compare the pictures). The latter has recorded several CDs (hence the Yahoo music page - which I think should therefore be de-referenced from the Wikipedia page), but I see nothing to suggest that the subject of the page has ever recorded? AllyD (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source found so far seems to be the Virginia Pilot article, and that is not enough to suggest neither importance (much less notability) nor verifiability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pax:Vobiscum. Clearly there is insufficient coverage here to form the basis of a proper article. The keep! votes seem to be based on mistaken views of the sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blend nightclub[edit]
- Blend nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable nightclub. No sources offered, no sources found. ~EdGl! 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No aparrent notability and the article is an opinion piece. I42 (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable establishment. Joal Beal (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as blatant WP:SOAPBOX. It might be notable, but if so it needs a complete rewrite from scratch. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I do not think we need articles on run-of-the-mill nightclubs any more than we do on typical pubs. There will of course be exceptions, but this seems NN to me. This is confirms by the lack of blue links or words that might become such (other than for places). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FlowStone DSP[edit]
- FlowStone DSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, just released, software product. No third party refs are provided or could be found to indicate any form of notability. The page started off as a pure advert - which was unsurprising as it was a copyvio of the product homepage. It's been toned down a little but is still non-neutral, and focuses only on the product (and its claimed benefits) rather than anything more encyclopedic. The images are also those from the product website and have been uploaded by the author of the article as their own work, so there appears to be a conflict of interest. Speedy deletion nomination (as spam) contested. I42 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seem to lack independent coverage and the (completely unreferenced) benefits section dwarfs the (also completely unreferenced) one-line "criticism" section. I WP:AGF that this article is a genuine attempt at writing an encyclopedic entry, but the result is still mere promotion of a product. Pcap ping 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie Panic! Source 2: The Zombie Strikeback[edit]
- Zombie Panic! Source 2: The Zombie Strikeback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No apparent evidence of a sequel- the only two references originall provided turned out to be fake. I believe this is a hoax. ALI nom nom 20:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, its creator does not seem to be a good-faith account: see this and this. ALI nom nom 20:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A Google query for the phrase "the zombie strikeback" returned zero results outside Wikipedia, so the article would pretty much be unverifiable speculation at best. And considering how long it took for the real game Zombie Panic! Source to be developed, I find it very hard to believe that the development of a sequel could be completed within a 3-month period. Furthermore, if a sequel were to be completed in March 2010, it seems rather ridiculous for the developer(s) to wait until August before releasing it. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an apparent hoax. I declined a G3 tagging because, although I couldn't find any evidence of the game's existence, it didn't seem quite obvious enough for speedy to me. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hoax. Claritas (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very snowy.— Hellknowz ▎talk 17:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Article about a game, which wasn't released. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — no evidence of such a game existing; seems to be yet another one of those editors who places false information into articles. ... discospinster talk 04:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immigrant Modes of Production in the Florida Citrus Industry[edit]
- Immigrant Modes of Production in the Florida Citrus Industry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copydumped essay. — e. ripley\talk 20:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ripley,
I'm not finished with this article. Note the date and time of creation. Give me some room man, I'm new to this wiki, and this is a trial and error project for a school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcowherd (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this is a trial and error project for a school assignment. Best wishes with your assignment, and please do read the comments on your talk-page.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essay. Hairhorn (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Whether it is a school assignment I have no idea, but it is clearly an essay, giving a personal analysis, and no attempt to give objective coverage. It clearly should be deleted. in addition, the author and only substantial contributor blanked the article in this edit, so it qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD G7. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Houthoff Buruma The Game[edit]
- Houthoff Buruma The Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded multiple times. No reliable sources added by the author. The author himself is a suspected COI case. The article, after considerable time given to the author to improve it, is still not notable. Request AfD delete. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 20:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real notability established with sources. No hits on search through reliable sources. The game exists and may have all the best intentions, but it cannot be properly sourced. The article promotes the company more than it addresses the game. — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources, let alone any with any significant coverage. Fails WP:RS and WP:N --Teancum (talk) 11:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources showing that this meets the notability guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails basic notability requirements for lack of reliable sources. It may get some coverage through the World Expo appearance, but it may not; the article can be recreated if it does. --McGeddon (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This is a messy AfD. On the one hand, the article has been posted by an SPA, Peoplemedia (talk · contribs), clearly representing People Media Group, on whose website Captain Conners' services as a speaker are advertised in terms very similar to this article; on the other, the nominator and several of those !voting to delete are plausibly accused of sockpuppetry. The fact that the article was posted for publicity purposes is not itself an argument for deletion, but makes one look hard at the evidence for notability; and though some delete !voters may be socks, we are not counting !votes, we are considering the arguments, and other editors are also arguing to delete. My conclusion is that the case for deletion is made out; the sources cited are not enough to establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brick Conners[edit]
- Brick Conners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Lacks sufficient notability per WP:BIO. While his service honorable, the individual has done or been awarded nothing beyond what a normal military installation commander has done or been awarded that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. This individual has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the Navy per WP:ANYBIO. Additionally, the individual has since retired from naval service and no longer holds the position in this article. The article is self-promotional and indiscriminate publicity per WP:SPIP. It is almost a verbatim copy of a publicity company's webpage (see http://www.peoplemediagroup.com/people%20who%20speak%20well.html). In fact, the userid of originator, Peoplemedia, matches the name of the publicity company and the user's only activity was to list this page. There is no verification that any of the biographical information in the Background section is correct per WP:RS. Canals86966 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice - The above comments were struck because this AfD nomination was made by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many thousands of other military officers that have served honorably without achieving sufficient notability. If he did still hold the position, he could have his name on Naval Air Station Point Mugu or Naval Construction Battalion Center Port Hueneme, but not his own entry. It does also look like the page was originally created as indiscriminate publicity by Peoplemedia and none of the individual's identifiable information on the entry can be linked to reliable sources.Facet62 (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice - The above comments were struck because they were added by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability in WP:BIO. As Canals86966 noted, it does appear that it was originally listed for publicity by a PR firm WP:SPIP. The notability of this article has been in question since August 2008.Kylix8 (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice - The above comments were struck because they were added by a sockpuppet in violation of wikipedia policy. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Canals86966 for evidence. Kugao (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable officer. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for your resume. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention to support a claim of notability. The evidence shows that this topic has gained significant independent recognition. References added to the article have been found from reputed media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Kugao (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations to the Ventura County Star articles do not do a thing to establish the notability of this individual, and the Reuters link is just a Navy press announcement about an event typical of an installation commander. They merely report on activities that occurred on the base while he commanded it (any other individual would have likewise been mentioned in passing). There is nothing about this officer that sets him apart from his peers. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing editor: It is not difficult to conclude that User:Facet62 and User:Canals86966 and User:Kylix8 are all the same editor. And also add to the list User:166.137.10.83 (the IP who has been blanking my edits). How many other accounts have been set up to try to influence the deletion of this article? This account needs protection form the SPs, not deletion. Kugao (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sum 41 2010 World Tour[edit]
- Sum 41 2010 World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews [5]. LibStar (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mind Flare Media[edit]
- Mind Flare Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music label where no reliable sources can be found, and article is completely unreferenced. As it stands, it is doubtful the article CAN be referenced with reliable sources since I could not find any under my search criteria. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A List (Conservative)[edit]
- A List (Conservative) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relies on a single source (blog), not reported in any TV or print media and is potentially libellous. The Conservative Party themselves haven't admitted the existence of such a thing. Quentin Smith 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It currently references one blog, but it could use loads of sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. The Conservative Party would not be a reliable source for commenting on the existence of the list, so Wikipedia is agnostic to their comment or lack thereof. If the current content is 'potentially libellous', you should remove the parts that are in violation of Wikipedia policy. The article, however, is not inherently against those rules, and, therefore, it is not grounds for deletion. Bastin 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. "Not reported in any TV or print media"? Did you even bother to look? – iridescent 01:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is evidently a notable subject. What is remarkable is that the article was so neglected for so long. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Huge amounts of coverage of this exists:[11], and the idea that the Tories denied existence of such a list is plain wrong if you look at the coverage from 2006. Fences&Windows 17:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. The Conservatives are quite open about the existence of this list. I'm not sure whether this is better as a stand-alone article or as part of a larger article on Cameron Conservatism, but it's certainly not a candidate for deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep. This has a huge amount of coverage. Thanks are due to those who improved on the research by the original author and the nominator. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like quite an interesting article. PatGallacher (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wish I had found this article earlier. It is a useful contribution.Shipsview (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Sorry for this mistake. Now that the article has been cleaned up it is a better article. Thank You. --Quentin Smith 19:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Daniel Spencer[edit]
- Adam Daniel Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2007. Lack of reliable sources found. This appears to be a BLP1E subject -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources found. No objection to covering this story if it's sufficiently covered by third-party media. (This kind of story pops up every now and then so I'm not sure how note-worthy this is.) However, at the moment, none of the information is verifiable, some of the content isn't really appropriate for non-public figures, and all-in-all it's a WP:BLP violation waiting to happen. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- These stories may be good for selling newspapers, but not really encyclopaedic. 3 B grades at A-level does not indicate great brilliance (or not yet), even iof taken young. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E + lack of reliable third party references, -Reconsider! 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Illuminati (Deus Ex)[edit]
- Illuminati (Deus Ex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability or sources. After merger with Organizations in Deus Ex and Organizations in Deus Ex: Invisible War this is WP:CFORK. The article is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PLOT and does not deserve article space. Content's notability is WP:NOTINHERITED — neither from Illuminati, nor Deus Ex. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- sourceless crufty plot summary that is redundant to fancruft in other articles. Reyk YO! 22:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources with significant coverage for this topic. Would be better suited as a short paragraph in Deus Ex (series) (which needs moved anyways, as the series article currently sits at Deus Ex. --Teancum (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deletion as a blatant copyright violation. — CactusWriter | needles 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stick house[edit]
- Stick house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is a definition of a term. Claritas (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the impression I came up with, but okay. Why not just redirect to List of house types? ALI nom nom 16:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Any other problems aside, the article is entirely a copyright violation of [12]. I have tagged it as such. --Pumpmeup 17:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete* Stick framing/building/construction is another word for Light-frame construction which already redirects to Framing (construction). Just google "Journal of Light Construction." --Savonneux (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via db-copyvio. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISL Online[edit]
- ISL Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotion for non-notable company, masquerading as a encyclopedia content. Written by a company official. No significant coverage that I have come across. Haakon (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: I put a "subst:afd1" template on the page, for some reason this hadn't been done yet. Most of the independent secondary sources about this company/product appear to be reviews, I don't think they constitute significant coverage per wp:n. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: advertisement - reads like a product brochure. Written by a company representative and is reason why WP needs to enforce ban on COI edits by org. representatives. Calltech (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence element[edit]
- Sentence element (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced article, no evidence given to demonstrate that this is a term actually used in linguistics. I have never heard it before, except as a regular phrase (i.e., not a technical term). Prod was contested. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete: You'll see the words together from time to time, of course, just like you'll find "you'll find" together sometimes. But the article implies that this is a term of art beyond this, and that is misleading; it is very important that this article be deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of this material is already covered in Category:Syntactic entities and Category:Parts of speech with individual articles for each part.--Savonneux (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed the prod because it sounded like something potentially article-worthy; I have no opinion on whether it actually is worthy or not. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to tentatively suggest a redirect to Clause, but since that page cites no references, I would not object to deletion if no better target can be found. Cnilep (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, according to this article, "sentence elements" are not necessarily clauses. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think this is a bad idea. Redirects should not be surprising - if clause doesn't define "sentence element" (which afaik has no special definition anyway) then the redirect itself could be interpreted as a definition - a wrong definition in this case - and is confusing. Nobody likes getting redirected to pages where it is hard to tell why the redirect exists. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that clause is a/the sentence element; rather, Clause lists the elements of a clause as subject, predicate, etc. That said, the objections raised by Rjanag and ErikHaugen are important ones. In particular, I wouldn't want the redirect to suggest that "clause" is equivalent to "sentence elements". Cnilep (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nathanael Boehm[edit]
- Nathanael Boehm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:BASIC. PROD was removed by page creator. The subject is mentioned in several sources, but either is self published, part of a trivial mention such as a list, or a source of a quote rather than the subject of the secondary source as is the case here. Jminthorne (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly an autobiography. Wait until someone with no COI thinks he is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Government ethics[edit]
- Government ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod (by a sockpuppet of the original author). This article is simply a muddled, circular definition of the term "government ethics" that tells us nothing - each sentence repeats the previous one with increasing inaccuracy. It boils down to "government ethics is the ethics of government". Fails WP:OR. andy (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with the nominator that the stub that was here was rather confusing and unfocused. I've attempted to rewrite it with a more pertinent quasi-disambiguating definition, and the subject is easily worthy of expanding. Surprised to see no article on legislative ethics yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination fails to explain why the article cannot be improved in accordance with editing policy. It states that the content is tautology but then contradicts itself by saying that it is original research. There are hundreds of good sources for this topic. The nomination fails our deletion policy on numerous counts. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news shows many things. President Carter even created an organization called Office of Government Ethics. [13] to keep track of such things. The concept of government ethnics is quite notable. Hordes of Google news results as well as 1,948 results for Google Book search. Dream Focus 22:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: give this article a chance. But might be redundant with an article on corruption. Consider a merge if the article fails to grow in a way that offers any new information. Arskwad (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Deleted as a content fork, then redirected Shimeru (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series[edit]
- List of worlds in the Kingdom Hearts series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article duplicates content in the delisted GA Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Content similar to the lengthy list of worlds was removed from the Universe article to comply with quality standards brought during the GAR, which ended in September 2009. In November 2009, this page was expanded from a redirect to a list which included almost identical content to the Universe article. I believe the page should be deleted because the title is not a likely search term and the article is primarily linked to other articles via Template:Kingdom Hearts series. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Guyinblack25 talk 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, this is definitely FANCRUFT previously CFORK from Universe article. It's good fancruft, but fancruft nevertheless. It's like Organizations in Deus Ex or whatnot. I recognise the worlds do not inherit notability from the game. It's a week and moot point, but I rather that fans are happy on this page than tangle Universe page. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Universe page can be maintained if need be. But when content gets forked like this, it's more difficult to handle. Either way, content forks are discouraged per Wikipedia:Content forking. The development and reception is almost identical to that of the Universe article. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete as inappropriate content fork duplicating another article with a the addition of information taken entirely from WP:GAMEGUIDEs. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful info into the original article, but delete here. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, most of the info is fancruft, and would require significant effort to be placed in the main article. Unless somebody volunteers, the info will be deleted without a merge.— Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any content that could be kept, is already in the Universe article almost word for word, hence the content forking. All that's left is the actual list of the worlds, which I believe should be deleted. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Unfortunately, most of the info is fancruft, and would require significant effort to be placed in the main article. Unless somebody volunteers, the info will be deleted without a merge.— Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the info can still be useful.Fractyl (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, useful to a very small crowd and not a general reader. This is why there are specialist wikis.— Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing is a general reader. You only read articles for things you are interested in, and won't even find your way here if you weren't looking for it. Dream Focus 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, but that is besides the point. Such excess detail is unless to the layman, which is the audience we write for. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- There is no such thing is a general reader. You only read articles for things you are interested in, and won't even find your way here if you weren't looking for it. Dream Focus 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, useful to a very small crowd and not a general reader. This is why there are specialist wikis.— Hellknowz ▎talk 14:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Guyinblack25's reasoning and also the information is taken from game guides per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. No notability has been established and they have no reliable sources to cover this article, so I think this article should be deleted no matter the cost. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, per above. The fork was created without discussion and should not have been made in the first place. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: A worlds list is perfectly fine. - Donald Duck (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It helps to better understand the series itself, and thus is quite encyclopedic. Anyone wishing to learn about a bestselling insanely successful series, should be able to read about it, and all notable aspects of it, that including character list, enemies list, and list of worlds. Dream Focus 23:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When clicking the link up top that searches through all the sites deemed as reliable sources for video game related things, I find an IGN article right away [14] which list the worlds. The worlds are talked about there. So they get coverage. Many other things appear in the search, but I don't see the need to look through all of them, there enough reason already to convince me this is notable. Look around here [15] if you want to find more sources. Perhaps even search for individual worlds that get mentioned at various places in detail. Dream Focus 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I have to disagree with the idea that all aspects of the series should be "listed" out here on Wikipedia. Several other game guide sites already provide such content.
Also, a search engine test by itself is not enough to establish notability. Searching through the first page of the Google search did not turn up much. Only two pages actually list any worlds, briefly in my opinion. A small section are user pages that do not satisfy WP:RS. A bulk of the others are IGN pages with a forum link at the bottom of the pages that includes "worlds" in the title.
Regardless, none of thisdoes not addressaddresses the content forking. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) —grammar edit to my comment (Guyinblack25 talk 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm afraid I have to disagree with the idea that all aspects of the series should be "listed" out here on Wikipedia. Several other game guide sites already provide such content.
- Delete-as mentioned above, this is a pointless content fork. The sources provided are either material from the works themselves, or are unreliable things like blogs, and Guyinblack's analysis of the claimed Google sources is spot on. Reyk YO! 08:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Preserve the article seems to have alot of information and content forking doesn't sound like a bad idea, i'm sure this specific reception of the worlds in kingdom hearts.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is currently in the "Reception" section is about all I turned up during the initial quality push a few years back. There is very little about specific worlds, and what is available is generalized. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete but not before merging some of the developer bits into the appropriate game or series articles. A list of worlds in a game is generally WP:GAMEGUIDE, and most of the entries here are just talking about the worlds in-universe. There is some useful information that can be rescued, but not the full list; alternatively, because these reference certain Disney films, a table in the series articles to list the worlds and movies borrowed from would be appropriate. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A suitable expansion of the section of the universe article--at least, it will be suitable when condensed a little, but more than the single paragraph in the main article is necessary DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The same content was removed from Universe of Kingdom Hearts during its GAR because of quality concerns. If it wouldn't pass GA, why should it be fine to stick around as a Start-class list? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete and Transwiki to article at Disney Wikia. References or no, this ends up being WP:GAMECRUFT. The mentions to particular worlds are mostly trivial, with reliable sources providing insignificant coverage for any given location. Most worlds have a passing mention at best in the references. Also fails WP:GAMEGUIDE. For instance, Mario (series) has one paragraph for the entire Mushroom Kingdom. I'm not saying it needs to be that small, but the amount of content in Universe of Kingdom Hearts gives the reader plenty. We don't need a comprehensive list of worlds each with a 1-2 paragraph blurb. That's exactly what a strategy guide is for. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first and last sections are very general info about the game series, and are covered elsewhere. I think the level of detail in the rest of the article is too great and could be cut down to a few lines per world and merged with the individual game articles. JokerWylde (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately the article does not have enough content to justify itself. Though arguably it plays a similar role as the Characters of Kingdom Hearts page for worlds.KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Universe of Kingdom Hearts - I checked what Guyinblack25 said and the reception section of this article is entirely copied from the other article. This is nothing but a content fork that crams in a ton of WP:GAMEGUIDE info. Keep the other article and delete this fork. Arskwad (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Lack of sources. Only keep arguments are SPAs; both IPs have made NO other edits than to this AfD. Shimeru (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hirondelles[edit]
- Hirondelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not a well-written article, to put it mildly: much of its content is promotional (note the use of the first person), and it's verbose. In many ways it does not come close to meeting WP guidelines for style and content, but worse, I can find no reliable source establishing notability--see this search]. No articles or other references are provided. I could prune this article down to acceptable size and format, but that effort would be wasted until someone else can supply references. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that there's not much worth saving in this article. I'm having a hard time finding anything about this place. I tried hard, too - if it's a real place, and with a green initiative behind it, I would expect something... even just a news article somewhere. There's a couple links mentioning a "Cap des Hirondelles," but not with any information whatsoever. Until anything notable can be found, I second this. Sheeana Talk 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't agree. Green Village Hirondelles is a green urban development design in Vietnam, all data public in the workshops. Supported by several universities like BTU Cottbus, Prof.em. Volker Martin, by the UNESCO Chair in Sustainable Urban Development in Asia and Pacific, The University of Newcastle Australia, universities in Vietnam and Germany. Green Village Hirondelles gives students, examninees, PhDs an open platform for their theses. The text is written by students, examinees from Germany and Vietnam, no English native speeking people. Hirondelles is the synonym about the swallos flying there. Hirondelles is the first urban development in Vietnam with this green impact and designed from students in this green concequence. Green Village Hirondelles probably will be the first Asian example of green development. But as you see from the data, everything is just started to become public. Hirondelles is a future orientated green design. No student, no examninee knows anothers projects in Vietnam with this consequent green impact. The examples you present have nothing to do with this green sustainable and future orientated design. Hirondelles is a huge urban calculation and design of students and professors. Hirondelles is supported by NPO´s and government. For students Green Village Hiorndelles is future, an example to be back on reliable urban development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Gade (talk • contribs) 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, I hope you don't mind: I have slightly refactored your comment to fit with the usual format of these things--I assume you would say keep in this discussion. If not, click on "View history" and "undo" my edit. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael, as I said to Florian, what we need are some notable sources about the project. This could information in a journal, newspaper, book, or notable website. Without any external sources, we're just unable to establish that the project is notable. If you can find such sources, I'm happy to help rewrite the article. Sheeana Talk 16:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don’t agree with the deletion. In my encyclopedic sense files about Hirondelles are indispensable in encyclopedias. The workshops agreed to present results in publishing in encyclopedic media.
The Hirondelles’ students in Saigon gave an update about Wikipedia Encyclopedia Hirondelles’ file. Universities propose encyclopedias as an education, science and cultural research. In 2008 for education and science workshops Hirondelles foundation gave the opportunity for universities in several countries of 3 continents, like Germany, Vietnam and Australia. The use of encyclopedia should result in increasing of educational and scientific knowledge. Hirondelles gives people the opportunity to learn about climate change, energy efficiency as well as global awareness. All Hirondelles workshops are engaged with scientists in clean development designs and green building designs.
Moreover, Hirondelles is a typically encyclopedic representative in education, science and culture, as Hirondelles presents education and science new results in energy efficiency in tropical areas (high temperature and high humidity), reactions to climate change, prevention in global warming and designing carbon neutral urban development. Hirondelles is a 2 years work of urban design and since several months in first workshops. Since April 2010 United Nations education, science and culture organization - UNESCO Chair in sustainable urban development in Asia and Pacific decided to give intellectual support; based on Hirondelles’ green design. This is evidence of education, science and cultural value of Green Village Hirondelles in Vietnam, actually being the only supported green development. This provides evidence for encyclopedic value for other students, examinees, PhDs, engineers, experts. People with high interests get satisfied with encyclopedic reports. UNESCO is international representative of education, science and culture.
Wikipedia encyclopedia takes advantage of being an online encyclopedia compared to print media. Workshops are focusing on mentioning this advantage. In my encyclopedic sense it is for online encyclopedias valuable to have Hirondelles file. The Wikipedia decision is up to you.
Prof.em. Volker Martin – BTU Cottbus / Germany. Head of Hirondelles workshops and appointed Vice Chairman of Symposium UNESCO Chair in sustainable urban development in Asia and Pacific supporting Green Village Hirondelles in December 2010 in Ho Chi Minh City / Vietnam.123.20.103.57 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Either hoax or very likely non-notable, at least not verifiable. Polargeo (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I heard about green village Hirondelles in megacity project in Vietnam (megacity is biggest government climate change project in Vietnam between Vietnam and German government since several years). We megacity scientist / lectures talked in our workshop about Hirondelles and Wiki. Hirondelles will have future impact in green designs in Vietnam. Its support by UNESCO Chair is unique. I verified and ask Prof. Martin. Yes, keep it. Green village Hirondelles is on the way to become example of megacity spread-out theory. Well done science. Megacity 222.254.179.158 (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reflecting from start of Hirondelles Wikipedia file a week ago: The foundation understood the university workshops approach (especially the workshops in Vietnam and Germany) for a science publicity coming out with Green Village Hirondelles and its UNESCO Chair support. It is unique in Vietnam and in SE Asia. Since last 2 years the foundation publicity policy was focused on universities and workshops, students, examinees, experts, not in media. The foundation´s purpose is to give engineers, urban planners and architects, as well as students, examinees, PhDs a foundation real estate platform to realize green designs, to be a realistic part of preventing climate change, global warming, future health lifestyle and creating a new sustainable urban village, study the urban spread-out theory.
Green Village Hirondelles presents for 7,000 people a unique spread-out urban solution with green technologies in tropical energy efficient architecture with a main focus on energy efficiency success and strong green footprint. The foundation agreed with a online encyclopedia file with focus on green footprint information and UNESCO Chair support. Media promotion is not the purpose of the foundation and is not purpose of the Wikipedia file. The foundation agrees with the Wikipedia encyclopedia file as the foundation sees the solid information online platform.
To verify Green Village Hirondelles´ content is possible in universities documentations and UNESCO Chair. Hajo Sauer (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four to the Floor (film)[edit]
- Four to the Floor (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A year since the planned release, and this little piece of WP:CRYSTAL has never begun principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. —Kww(talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per development hell, I mean WP:NFF.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF and WP:V. — Satori Son 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith talk 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. No prejudice against recreating the article when the film is finished and in theaters. Joal Beal (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation if/when filming begins or is completed AND only if sources can be brought forward to meet inclusion criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Was supposed to be released in 2009. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Result was to delete - UtherSRG (talk) 03:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dark Iris[edit]
- Dark Iris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable band: no press coverage, no record deal, nothing else that can make them pass notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the band gets deleted, then the albums (which aren't released yet, and when they are will be available through online vendors only, without record label) should go too: Victims of Circumstance (album) and The Guardian (album). Drmies (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - no notability - these should have all been speedied. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, go ahead and slap that template on them, and see how the first admin feels--I don't mind (but one could claim to see an appeal for notability in the article). I've really sent this to AfD as a nod to the good-faith contributor. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uther, the creator left me a message on my talk. If/when this gets deleted, could you userfy it for them? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see how this band passes WP:BAND. Internet searches seem to bring up mostly social networking sites, but certainly no coverage in RS. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try searching keywords such as "Dark Iris Alaska" or "Dark Iris Reborn" or "Dark Iris band"? I will admit, that social networks are our dominant resources but if you mess around with different keywords you will come across many different lyric websites, a bit of press here and there, wikis, reviews, all sorts of stuff but you have to look for it. It's not just social networks, those just come up first in search results because those are our official pages, but there are many more if you look and use different keywords. --Larry52333 (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit I didn't do an extensive search using multiple keywords. However, I think you should review WP:BAND, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Basically, your band needs significant coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable (and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia). Significant coverage means more than just "Band X played at venue Y." The coverage needs to be about the band. The next issue is that coverage has to be in reliable sources. Lyrics sites, wikis, and social networking sites are not reliable. Newspapers, magazines, and web publications with at least some editorial oversight would be considered reliable. If you can find such sources and present them here, I might reconsider. You're new here and I don't want to bite you, but I simply haven't seen what makes your band notable. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 01:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not necessarily new, I've been contributing for nearly two years, and some of my work has stayed but I see your point. I can probably come up with a few reliable news articles if you can hold off on deleting for the time being. How long do you think the article will last before someone deletes it? Can I post a Hold on tag to assure it won't be taken down immediately? There are a few weekly newspapers and related sources that I can have write an in-depth article or two on the band or on our debut album or like things. Or maybe a review on the band itself. If we can make an agreement to give me a period of time to come up with some press releases, I can probably get something in about two weeks or less. If it's possible to keep the wiki article up until then then I can more than likely present you with some more sources. The only thing I have relatively close to an eligible press release would be a blog a fan wrote about us, and I was already told it's not in-depth enough but it may be fine for the moment if you would look at it. It's a blogger named Anna Ricky, it's in our references section. But I will do everything I can to get more news sources to reference that might make us eligible. Can you hold off on deleting for now so I will have a bit of time to do this? I don't know what wikipedia's policy is about hold-ons... Thank you. --Larry52333 (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK a couple things. Sorry for assuming you were new...I should have checked your contribs. The article won't be deleted as a result of this AfD until (at least) seven days after it was nominated for deletion. However, that won't stop someone from tagging it for speedy deletion. If an admin believes it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, it can be deleted on the spot. A hold on tag will do nothing for the AfD, but if it is tagged for speedy a hang on tag might buy you some time. Blogs are seldom considered reliable (again, an editorial oversight issue). Press releases are not considered independent and thus cannot be used to demonstrate notability, unless the material in the press release is carried by an independent reliable source. Same goes for reviews: they have to be carried by reliable sources. I personally think you are going to have a difficult time convincing folks that this band is notable. If the article is deleted, you can ask the deleting admin to userfy the article so you can continue working on it in your user space and find more sources. Oh, and not to mention there is a huge conflict of interest issue here. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries man. I didn't take offense to you thinking I was new. Don't worry about it :) I see your point. So if I was to email some newspapers right now and asked them to write something about the band in their own words but with accurate information, then that wouldn't help at all? Yeah, I was worried about the article getting speedied. That's pretty much just what I'm trying to avoid. As for userfication, I already requested two different admins to userfy if it does end up getting deleted so that shouldn't be an issue unless they disregard my request. I know how it is. The way I see it, if you tell someone about your band, they won't believe anything you say unless you prove it on wikipedia and in general. So I guess it just means I have to do my best to stock up on sources that could be considered eligible and do what I can to convince you all that the band isn't just a local band where nobody else knows about our existance. I think once we release our debut album, our notability will increase because we already have guaranteed airtime on numerous radio stations across the country so once our music hits the airwaves, this issue might not exist will it? Anyway, I'm doing my best to come up with more sources, I'm emailing some newspapers about possibly writing about us in their own words or reviewing us or something like that but I'll make sure the information is accurate. If none of this works, I'm not sure what will. --Larry52333 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 02:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I just read the conflict of Interest thing too. I can probably find some sources that keep a neutral overlook on the subject. --Larry52333 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it seems like what Larry says confirms that this article is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards and should be deleted (or userfied). Assuming this action takes place, then the album articles/redirects should also be deleted or userfied. LadyofShalott 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edith Fisch[edit]
- Edith Fisch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I first created this article when I began editing, but now suspect that it does not meet notability standards. Besides for this full profile, there does not seem to be substantial coverage. If anything, this paid death notice and this description, is indicative of non-notability. PinkBull 05:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google Books has a number of texts that cite Edith Fisch: [16]. Deleting the article might be a hasty thing to do. Joal Beal (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just added more sourcing. It's a little light (I don't think a paid death notice should be considered as evidence of notability) but even without that one there's more than one independent source, enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hit Singles by American Idol Contestants[edit]
- Hit Singles by American Idol Contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
useless, orphaned article tagged since April of 2009. Most of the content is already included in the American Idol articles. Alan - talk 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It's unsourced, and if no attempt to improve it in that department is made, then I won't be sorry to see it deleted. A measure of the success of any show that attempts to locate undiscovered talent is the extent to which its participants have gone on to success after being discovered. I'm not sure how one would easily find this anywhere else, since it would require knowledge of who has been a contestant on the show, even before one would go to that person's Wikipedia page. That the information may be in other articles is of no use if we don't have a way of navigating to those articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As an unreferenced completely orphaned article for over a year it's not helping anyone by keeping it. This may have been better poposed as a proposed deletion, but it doesn't matter now. --Pumpmeup 15:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was the original tagger of the article and I always meant to come back to it if it was not improved, but I guess I just forgot about the article. This article was a recreation of material I removed from American Idol Hot 100 singles through discussion at its second nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Hot 100 singles (2nd nomination). That article would have been deleted had the information not been removed, so I do not think it would make it through an AfD on its own. Wow, it even looks like I put a merger proposal of this article and American Idol Hot 100 singles back in February 2009 and got no response. Aspects (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Hansen[edit]
- Larry Hansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Artist is not notable, nor is the band. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails notability on all counts. Why wasn't this speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Musamies (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Be weary when a 15 year old is claimed to be a "veteran." P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7/ person with no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. The article appears to be a vanity piece, if its author User:Larry52333 is also Larry Hansen. Joal Beal (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article's only sources appear to be from Larry Hansen's personal websites, and it was written by Larry Hansen himself. These are all indications that a.) this is meant to promote the band or b.) the subject isn't notable.
Ojay123 (Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page! 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Okon[edit]
- Marc Okon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability and sourcing problems. No relevant hits in Google News. This article was deleted twice on May 2nd, once as the result of a BLPprod (as the article lacked sources at that time and arguably still does), the second time an A7 speedy. The subject of the article has now created the article a third time. I abstain from the discussion of whether the deletion is appropriate, I'm likely biased at this point, but I *do* humbly request that if the result of this debate is delete, that if there's a remedy for consistent recreation of the article that that remedy be considered. Joe Decker (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources can be found. The only source cited in the article is Okon's own show, and I couldn't find any other sources with a Google News search. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt Completely non-notable. His entire claim to fame seems to be that he once interviewed Noam Chomsky. Two problems with that: First, Chomsky gives out interviews like popcorn, several a month on average during 2009 according to Chomsky's own website [17], and second, the Marc Okon interview is not listed there. (Funny - I remember an AfD debate a few months ago where a tiny student-run magazine, and its three principals, were all claiming notability because they once interviewed Chomsky. I wonder how many other such Wikipedia articles there are?) BTW this page was created by a single-purpose account named User:Marc.okon. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Shimeru (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Money (Michael Jackson song)[edit]
- Money (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, non-charting Michael Jackson that fails WP:NMUSIC and that continues to be un-redirected by a highly disruptive editor. I'm bringing it here for a wider audience. I suggest redirection and protection to stop recreation of this article on a non-notable track. Pyrrhus16 03:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rated as mid-importance on wikiproject Michael Jackson's importance scale.216.36.87.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy delete. The song is not notable enough to have its own article. Crystal Clear x3 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep it is notable because it appeared on two albums. HIStory and Blood on the Dance Floor.166.137.143.239 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Sockpuppet of User:OttomanJackson, who has !voted below. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment Am I the only one who finds it odd that this IP user just comes from out of the blue to make there first ever edits on Wikipedia on a AfD? I think that someone should make sure that this user is not a sock puppet trying to stack votes. Crystal Clear x3 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Would rather just see a redirect and page protection if necessary. I brought this user to WP:AN/I just a few days ago here, so another report so soon would likely earn him a short block. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I found a source for it and User:Silver seren formatted it OttomanJackson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- And? It is established that the song exists, but the track is not notable and fails WP:NSONGS. You've been told time and time again to stop creating/un-redirecting these Michael Jackson song articles, as all of his notable works already have articles and the lesser known ones should remain redirected to the relevant album article. Pyrrhus16 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. If OttomanJackson continues to edit with disregard to established policy, then a block is necessary. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Restore the original Redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. The coverage in the source in the article is not significant. More interesting references in reliable sources can be found here and here, but still, it does not add up to much, and the speculative snippet of information is covered already in our article HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. --Lambiam 19:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added more sources. KEEP PLEASE> OttomanJackson (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Album reviews for a song do not make it notable. Crystal Clear x3 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources in the article seem fine. Its hard to search through Google news for the word "Money" and find just the song, when his name and money appear over 13 thousand times. I found it briefly mentioned in the New York times [18] along with other songs, it just mentioning him whispering certain lyrics though. Surely a song related to a controversy like this has more coverage out there. Dream Focus 21:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More ARS dribble. Casual, one-line mentions do not establish notability for a song. Tarc (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you doubt there are sources mixed in with the countless thousands of results, or hidden behind paywalls? Most of the results from this search [19] can not be accessed freely. If anyone has a subscription, please look through them. Dream Focus 21:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep I love this song. Notable due to contreversy and background story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.54.202 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Don't indent votes. That doesn't make any sense. And it is not clear. That IP has been editing since January and made dozens of edits. If you believe you have a case against someone, take it to the proper place, and they'd do a check on it. Dream Focus 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come off it. It doesn't take an idiot to see that they are one and the same person. OJ replaces the IP's signature seconds after the IP leaves a note on a user talk page. Such blatant evidence doesn't require Checkuser. Reported to ANI, anyway. Pyrrhus16 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I didn't look through any of his edits before. Looking that case, it is quite obvious. Dream Focus 22:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come off it. It doesn't take an idiot to see that they are one and the same person. OJ replaces the IP's signature seconds after the IP leaves a note on a user talk page. Such blatant evidence doesn't require Checkuser. Reported to ANI, anyway. Pyrrhus16 22:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't indent votes. That doesn't make any sense. And it is not clear. That IP has been editing since January and made dozens of edits. If you believe you have a case against someone, take it to the proper place, and they'd do a check on it. Dream Focus 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into HIStory's background section. TbhotchTalk C. 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: relevant to the HisTory album and the context around making it....Arskwad (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just see WP:NSONGS STAT- Verse 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep – I think it had a music video66.158.68.102 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Another one from the same OttomanJackson stable as 24.15.54.202 - contribs make it clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can someone stop this Ottoman Jackson guy? He's a real nuisance isn't he? Str8cash (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too big an IP range(s) for a rangeblock. If there's another one I'll semi-protect the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. References or not, there's not enough information or notability for this song to stand on its own as an article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PresSTORE[edit]
- PresSTORE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN product, speedy denied. delete UtherSRG (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Mere existence of sources is a necessity, not a sufficiency. The question is, does this subject have historic notability (see WP:N). Venture capitalist and self-publisher with no sign of either being especially notable, and no evidence in this discussion to show "enduring notability" of any kind. Article sources are 3 college sources and a couple of transient writeups related to self-pub material and a non-notable false alarm due to a book delivery (see WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT). None of the respondents in this discussion have actually shown any strong evidence of non-transient historical notability. Although a minority, AFD is not a vote; the delete views seem to be well grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Shapero[edit]
- Rich Shapero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Page appears to have been a vanity page which has been reduced down to almost nothing. Prod tag has been removed under promotion, and under notability Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep (see ending comments) i was one of the editors who trimmed it back last year. i never found much evidence of notability, but i dont bother to afd articles, though i do !vote here. unless one of the college papers has a report on his apparently massive giveaways on campuses, i dont think we have notability here. boy, this page gets vandalized! the book is ubiquitous in thrift stores. book had a separate article which was deleted and redirected here. the music is really bad, thus unless it got "bad" reviews, it would have gotten no attention. sorry for the judgement, but it points again to no notability. update: Pax Vobiscum has provided the necessary references to show his notoriety (i had not found them myself, congrats to him).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of vandalism is a bit bizarre, was it a 4chan target? My impression is that Rich's work is self published through vanity presses, and never found a market. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dunno if 4chan is involved, but I'd guess that the reason this attracts so much intense backlash (as opposed to most self-published authors, who are usually just ignored) is the intense hard-sell street marketing tactics Shapero uses, where people dressed up in silly ram outfits practically force passerby to accept copies of the book, with all the intensity of a hellfire-and-damnation preacher. Marketing 101: free givaways are cool, annoying the heck out of potential customers isn't cool. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of vandalism is a bit bizarre, was it a 4chan target? My impression is that Rich's work is self published through vanity presses, and never found a market. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. Sources require verification of credibility. One reference is self-published. Prod-2 tag removed without reason and without notifying editor. Canals86966 (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete author with only one book, and it's self-published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The enormous proportion of his vanity advertisement has received a lot of attention including mainstream media like the San Francisco Chronicle (the reference was deleted but is now back). I'm definitely not a fan of his, but even though I find him annoying I believe that the coverage he has received meets our verifiability and notability standards. The vandalism is propbably just people who have gotten the book for free looking him up on wikipedia. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD and look through the summaries of the many results. This one [20] explains the negative press the guy got for hiring actors to protest it, in order to get media attention, and then mentions in detail what the book is about. Plenty more coverage about it out there. Dream Focus 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It should not matter if his books are self-published. The 3rd party media is verifiable and meets the guidelines for notability. Kugao (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of independent reliable sources included so I can't see why he shouldn't be notable per WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, deletion rationale has clearly been refuted, no delete votes standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronen Har-Zvi[edit]
- Ronen_Har-Zvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
No reason was given for the nomination, and the original editor who tagged the article for AFD did not actually create this debate. The original tag was made (here) by Vvarkey (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "article about a total nobody", which might serve as the rationale here. For my part, no opinion on Deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. (While I started this page, I did not make the call for deletion.) GM Har-Zvi easily meets the criteria for notability. (I just spent 12 hours this week listening to his webcasts.) Recommend the this entry be edited for NPOV, however: portions read like self-promotion. Billbrock (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.(as author) No reason given for deletion. Har-Zvi is notable as Grandmaster of chess.
decltype
(talk) 06:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets criteria for notability. Well-sourced, but article needs cleaning up with regard to NPOV. Canals86966 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep While I do feel chess is overrepresented on Wikipedia to a nearly absurd degree, I feel that if all the original nominator could come up with as reasoning was "article about a total nobody", then we really probably should have given it the attention of a full debate. Case dismissed due to lack of evidence, in other words. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no valid arguement for deletion has been provided.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This more than passes WP:BIO. Joal Beal (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Daniels[edit]
- Ryan Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn amateur hockey player. Claimed notability - that he won a major award in the Ontario Hockey League - is incorrect. I prodded on this basis, though another editor removed the tag and introduced a (dead) link to an unreliable reference for this claimed award. The OHL's Media Guide lists Trevor Cann as the winner in 2005-06 (page 134). Resolute 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 02:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Presuming that's a "major" award, which it is not. A non-notable amateur player with an undistinguished major junior career. Ravenswing 04:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Non-notable amateur. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable amateur. Was the goalie on the OHL All-Rookie Team in 2005-06 [21], but I don't think that is notable enough. Patken4 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sorry, not enough accomplishments on the scale needed for notability here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I.N.F.O. Productions[edit]
- I.N.F.O. Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims of notability are not referenced in reliable 3rd party sources. Supplied references do not meet guidelines (Discogs and Prodby.org are primary sources and reliability of interview link is not clear). Only contribution by creator of this article and 2 IPs is this article and edits to some albums claiming production credit and removing the prod on this article.
Google news and web searches on the title bring up only primary sources (blogs, twitter, myspace). I'm having trouble finding reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following nearly identical article for the same reasons described above:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some additional references have been added to the article but none cover the subject of this article directly. They mention the subject in passing only. Still not meeting the requirement of significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--RadioFan (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - fail to meet the requirements of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. One of the references tried to download a virus on my computer. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a fair vote. The site could be compromised. Your antivirus might have detected a false positive. Does the site itself satisfy WP:RS? That's what you've got to check. 122.163.204.157 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment its not a vote so that's okay. This is a discussion where we try to come to some concensus on whether the article should be kept or deleted. To answer your question, no that does not appear to be a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, sorry, that was me. Didn't realize I wasn't logged in. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was, just because a site is infected, does not mean that it automatically becomes an unreliable source. Aditya Ex Machina 10:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, it wasn't from my antivirus that I figured there was something wrong with the site. Now the page linked to on the article looked okay, but I wanted to see what the site in question was about. So I clicked "Home" and there was this thing, saying it was scanning my drive for viruses and saying it found tons of viruses... on a nonexistent drive. It offered me a new antivirus software, which I declined, but apparently the site wouldn't take no for an answer. So I'll have none of that.
- As for the article, I was unable to find reliable sources about the subject at hand. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to the site, and clicked on home (and a bunch of other links to make sure) and I didn't encounter any such notification. Perhaps you encountered a Pop-up ad? They can be rather deceiving at times. Also Google does not identify the site as a distributor of malware, and nor does my antivirus (which checks websites against a blacklist of websites known to be infected). Aditya Ex Machina 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment its not a vote so that's okay. This is a discussion where we try to come to some concensus on whether the article should be kept or deleted. To answer your question, no that does not appear to be a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 speedily deleted as G11. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 01:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hiren's BootCD[edit]
- Hiren's BootCD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, and unlikely to be product reviews given that it illegally redistributes commercial software. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commence mashing of delete button Blatant promotion of illegal activity. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - See my previous nomination for deletion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like G11 to me. Tagged as such. No usable sources in google books or news. The previous AfD was closed as "keep" purely on WP:ILIKEIT grounds. The closing admin should probably be desysoped for that. Pcap ping 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original AFD nominator. I always thought the closure of the previous AFD was questionable, though I don't think one questionable closure is grounds for recalling an admin. ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus of editors making arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, notability, reliable sourcing, and biographies of living persons is clear: the quantity and quality of reliable secondary source coverage is insufficient to justify an article currently. — Scientizzle 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Zubaty[edit]
- Rich Zubaty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I noticed this article because Mr. Zubaty himself has been busily creating links to it from other articles. When I read it, though, his chief claims to notability seem to be three self-published books and a podcast, and when I performed a google news search, I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources writing about his importance. In my opinion, there is not enough verifiable information currently available to write an article about this subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Keep But in MY opinion the books are well-researched and full of references. Other authors, many from academic backgrounds, are quoted at length. The point of Wikipedia is to BUILD an article step by step. As someone who had read some of Mr. Zubaty's books I vehemently DISAGREE that this article should be deleted. Indeed, it should be allowed to be expanded just like other articles. Wikipedia should NOT be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.226.223 (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC) \[reply]
- — 86.184.226.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This user, based on my recent interactions, is almost certainly Rich Zubaty- see my talk page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong: As a quick verification of IP addresses will show, not even a good author can be in two parts of the world at once. So much for FisherQueen’s judgement and so much for her opinions. I am NOT Rich Zubaty, but someone who has read his books. And someone who is trying contribute to Wikipedia but keeps having his additions removed by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I'd love to expand this article, and started out by trying to do so. Wikipedia's rules only allow me to use information that doesn't come directly from Zubaty, though- I need to use information from neutral sources like newspapers and magazines, or books that have been written about him, not by him. I couldn't find even one source that I could use to expand the article. If you know of any, that's the best way to help the article, because we aren't allowed to keep information that isn't verified in sources like that, and in this article, removing the unsourced information leaves no article at all. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong: As a quick verification of IP addresses will show, not even a good author can be in two parts of the world at once. So much for FisherQueen’s judgement and so much for her opinions. I am NOT Rich Zubaty, but someone who has read his books. And someone who is trying contribute to Wikipedia but keeps having his additions removed by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no references, not notable; N.B. IP clearly refuses to read the guidelines (forced reinsertion of inappropriate links, etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. The link I put back is to a video summary of one of the author's listed books. The description that I took the trouble to write keeps being removed. Everything is entirely within the Wikipedia guidelines. To continually be removing these is childish vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.198.144 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- You only get to vote once, please. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not a "vote". It was an expansion of my earlier comment. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.226.253 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You only get to vote once, please. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find any reliable source to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jminthorne (talk • contribs)
- DO NOT DELETE. I read Mr Zubaty's first book years ago and found it to be one of a very limited number of books I have read that had a significant impact on my own thinking. He is a free thinker and not tethered by the conventions of political correctness. I found this refreshing as I also found his ideas stimulating. Suggesting to delete his page here seems to make absolutely no sense to me. Unless different ideas that don't match with political correctness are a reason for deletion I can't think why someone would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmccull (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Jimmccull (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- DO NOT DELETE. Mr. Zubaty is a well known activist and author in the men's rights movement. To delete his page would be no different than deleting that of a similar feminist icon from the women's movement. Making any distinction between self published books and those published by more traditional methods is discriminatory, especially give the bias in publishing houses regarding men's rights literature.
Paul Elam Editor-in-Chief Men's News Daily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 98.201.88.191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Has Men's News Daily ever written an article about him? Can you cite it specifically? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we have, though even if we hadn't it would not mean a lack of legitimacy in the MRM. There are other people who we have not covered. The point about Zubaty's work is that it has now spanned two decades and many in the MRM are familiar with and supportive of his works. Here is one article from 2005 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/07/06/112070087985226306/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, as additional back up for my vote earlier, please note the following references: http://news.mensactivism.org/search/node/Zubaty and http://www.dadsontheair.net/shows/tag/political-correctness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.88.191 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Baehr Publisher, Menletter.org My newsletter, Menletter.org, contains a review of one of Rich Zubaty's books at http://menletter.org/articles/What Men Know That Women Don't.htm. His is a voice many may find irritating, and the content of his thoughts may not be universally accepted. I see these as no reason to delete his bio. Menletter is in its ninth year of publication. Menletter (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Menletter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Before FisherQueen comments on the link to the book review being broken, here it is again: http://menletter.org/articles/What%20Men%20Know%20That%20Women%20Don't.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.159.66 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks- I've added this review as a source in the article. That's one; the requirements call for 'multiple,' but we're on the right track now. You say that many don't like him- even reviews that don't like his book could still show that it's widely read and talked about, as long as they're in reliable, independent sources. The bar for notability does tend to be higher for self-published authors, but there are certainly other authors who self-publish that are notable- Dave Sim leaps to my mind. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sites with References to Author Rich Zubaty
- http://forum.stirpes.net/english/24733-isnt-britain-we-fought-say-unknown-warriors-wwii.html
- http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewforum.php?f=23
- http://www.fathersforlife.org/Table_contents_gj.htm
- http://www.takeninhand.com/node/2173
- http://www.angryharry.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.159.66 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 86.182.159.66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Blogs aren't reliable sources, and neither are forums, which means the first, second, and fourth items on your list are out. I didn't see an article about Zubaty with any information at "fathersforlife," just a quote from one of his books. We could use that to verify that quote is in the book, if we needed to, but that's all I saw. I can't figure out what "angryharry" has to do with Zubaty, nor can I figure out whether it would be a reliable source- it looks like some guy's blog, not like a published newspaper or magazine or a significant source of information, and I didn't see anything about Zubaty- maybe I looked in the wrong place. Has he been interviewed in a real newspaper, or in a print magazine, or written about on a web site that isn't a blog? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Zubaty has requested that his page be deleted
- I am not sure if this is significant, but a user claiming to be Zubaty has specifically requested that this page be deleted. His statement is as follows, "DELETE my page. I just had someone from Huffington Post link to my wiki page at which point I found out that all my links have been removed. Sabotage. I would rather people link directly to my web site. Rich Zubaty." Ebikeguy (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE. This is a transparent attempt at censorship. This is obvious by the attempt to belittle the man with the "self published" comment. It is ironic because Zubaty warns against suckling at the corporate teat in his books. He is a well known activist being persecuted by this scurrilous attack by an opponent. Here is a link to a search on a well known activist site with many references to him ** http://news.mensactivism.org/search/node/Zubaty
Quite frankly I find this attempt to censor Zubaty absurd. This is a feminist trying to censor a men's rights activist on the grounds that he has little presence in the corporate press - which is also a group that he opposes. Men's rights are largely ignored by the press, are we going to make Wikipedia also a means of suppressing things that are not deemed politically correct by feminists and the corporate world? Outrageous!! --Cathbard (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Cathbard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Yes, I wondered when one of you would start getting insulting with me personally. Looking at his web site, I figured that most of the people in this discussion would object to a female editor explaining the rules to them. If that's a problem, I certainly don't mind if you read the rules for yourself. I've linked them in this discussion already several times. I can't promise that no women were involved i writing them, but many men were involved; if I recall the last set of statistics correctly, there are more men than women editing Wikipedia, so you can read WP:BIO comfortable in the knowledge that they are at least mostly written by people with penises. Normally, people start getting insulting in these discussions when they've realized that the person they want to write about really doesn't meet the notability criteria; is that the position you're in? You can still write about him on your own web site, where you can make the rules yourself and don't have to let any women participate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pointing out that you are a self-professed feminist attacking a men's movement activist, not that you were just a woman. That gives you a vested interested in silencing people like Zubaty. It is you that is getting insulting (what a surprise!). He is a notable activist referred to regularly on the net even if the corporate press ignore him like they do with practically every aspect of the MRM. Your attempt at censorship is blatantly part of your feminist agenda and should be dismissed out of hand as such. --Cathbard (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that you are blaming my identification of myself as a feminist, rather than your own inability to find reliable sources discussing a person you claim is notable. You are incorrect, but the only way to really test that is to provide two or three sources which unimpeachably meet the reliable sources guidelines, and then see if I try to "censor" you by removing them from the article or continuing to support deletion. I, too, am frequently discussed on the internet, but that does not mean I am a useful subject for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Fisher, but you seem to be making rules up as you go along. Rich Zubaty is an author. You have seen proof that he is an author. Now think reader for one minute. Someone hears about Rich Zubaty. So he wants to look him up. He tries out Wikipedia, but all he is able to see is the bare minimum that Ebikeguy allows him to see. This is censorship. Moreover, it is a very shabby treatment of an author. And as he differs substantially from someone with your worldview, you have a smoking gun in your hand -- at the right place at the right time pointing in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that you are blaming my identification of myself as a feminist, rather than your own inability to find reliable sources discussing a person you claim is notable. You are incorrect, but the only way to really test that is to provide two or three sources which unimpeachably meet the reliable sources guidelines, and then see if I try to "censor" you by removing them from the article or continuing to support deletion. I, too, am frequently discussed on the internet, but that does not mean I am a useful subject for an encyclopedia article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have given you several links within the MRM but apparently they don't count to your feminist-centric mind. He is notable within the movement as we have clearly demonstrated. Your objection to the movement itself (as your derogatory comments have clearly shown) does not make his notability any the less but does support my assertion that this is purely a feminist attack on the MRM and has nothing to do with the rules.--Cathbard (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rich Zubati is a well know within his field of writing. He is also am active painter and artist. I can not see why deleting this page would be justified. Wikipedia is a good place for people to come to find out about people who are not easy to investigate otherwise. I often come to Wikipedia to find out about obscure people and events. If you want to continue to provide this sevice then certainly I would not delete this page.
DO NOT DELETE Rich Zubatay is an independent thinker who deserves to be heard, not censored. So many voices like Rich's have been censored, mainly because they aren't mainstream. Well, many people are tired of mainstream. I cannot believe the lengths some people will go to muzzle the voices of people they don't agree with. His thoughts on the corporatization of America has been very enlightening, particularly in "Corporate Vampires". Are encourage everyone to check out his books on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/002-8815806-6782464?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Rich+Zubaty&Go.x=11&Go.y=12). But here is the bottom line: many other people have been published on Wikipedia for contributing much less than Rich Zubatay. Mandel17 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 66.241.4.20 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Mandel17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- SO does that make my point any less valid? You seem to judge the content of arguments by the number of comments on Wikipedia. That is a blatant attempt to discredit. I would really like to know who is running Wikipedia. Mandel17 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandel17 (talk • contribs) [reply]
- See {{notavote}} (expanded above). And you should really read WP:NOTABILITY, MANY people have written books, papers, or published in different ways .. but that is not determining whether a page should be here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dirk, let's be honest - you are a Dutch chemist. How could you possibly know whether or not Rich Zubatay is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? Because you have a computer? Or because you are familiar with Wikipedia's rules & regulations? You simply should not have the authority to make this decision. 66.241.4.20 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE or DO... Rich, it's just wikipedia. my two cents: i read rich's book 'what men know.." during the lowest point of my life, the great divorce fiasco of '03. i do not exaggerate when i say his book not only enlightened me and provided salve to my torment, his book significantly contributed to my sanity, reatining my personal freedom and eventual recovery from the court-societal humiliation and pillaging of a man. lastly, what is FisherQueen infering by her moniker? that she's the female version of mythical wounded king who's kindgom suffers as he does? in mythology or reality women can just swap out a feminine archetype for a male despite the fact that the myth's, or reality's, male hero is the essence to begin with? men have built our modern world, because they were men. women did not because they are not capable of, or they would have. later rich! suck it, wikipedia! unsigned —Preceding comment added by User:130.76.32.167 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please DO NOT DELETE I have known Rich for over ten years and have appreciated his books, video's and podcasts. His #3 podcast is an absolute classic in MRM and a critical view of the past 40 years of American History. Rich is often quoted by other men's rights activists and is well respected in the movement. He's our Fisher King User:QIM —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
DO NOT DELETE. While it is clear that Mr. Zubaty must stop editing inappropriately, it seems equally clear that his is a noteworthy voice in the men's movement and that he is deserving of an article. The outpouring of endorsements on this page lead me to conclude that, while this article needs work, it should remain. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Has it occured to you that maybe this didn't just happen but rather they were asked to come here and comment? It seems fairly obvious to me that Mr. Zubaty has asked people that he feels are sympathetic to his agenda to come and comment here. I count at least six single purpose accounts with few or no other edits in this debate, it's pretty clear there has been some canvassing going on. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand your points, I wish you hadn't been such a big meanie about expressing them. Or am I just being a manhole here? ;) Ebikeguy (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and it looks like someone edited his article per his previous suggestions on his talk page. It is now an non-encyclopedic pile of self-promotion. I don't want to get in an edit war, but I would like someone to edit it back to the last quasi-encyclopedic version and protect it pending the resolution of this silliness. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or it isn't canvassing but rather an indication of the man's popularity that people were so outraged by the proposed deletion that they created accounts purely to object to the plan. --Cathbard (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice try. How did the proposed deletion come to everyone's attention? I don't think it's been reported in the New York Times just yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE. I have searched and searched, but I cannot find any evidence of real notability out there on the web. I am therefore changing my position on this issue.
- DO NOT DELETE. My argument for not deleting Mr. Zubaty's entry comes as a podcaster. Podcasting, by its very nature, is not intended for people who are already regarded as "notable" by cultural fiat, or media/academic manipulation. It is a powerful forum for real people with something significant to say, to say it, and they sink or swim based on their popularity. If they sink, they were not notable, if they swim, they are notable. I disagree with many things that Mr. Zubaty says, yet I regard his example as a strong influence on myself, other viewers of his work, and other podcasters. To say he is not notable in the podcasting world is naive, and incorrect. The size of the audience does not matter in podcasting. What matters is the IMPACT that a podcaster makes, and whether or not they endure despite having no corporate resources. To read so many words of support here, and then proceed to blow Zubaty off as irrelevant, is to challenge the significance of every member of his audience. How dare you! In my opinion, based on what I have seen, this is a veiled attempt to censor unpopular opinions. I try to take Wikipedia seriously, despite the fact that controversial topics and individuals are almost always edited to favor the more rabid side of the controversy. But moving to actually delete a controversial figure is unacceptable. It is tantamount to virtual assassination. In the context of what Rich Zubaty does, he is very significant, and even if I disagree with him I regard him are more notable than 95% of the individuals featured in mainstream media (including publishing houses; hence the significance of self-publishing), because the man demonstrates how to think for yourself. Those who wish to censor him only demonstrate the very problem that prevents so many people from thinking for themselves. Mr. Zubaty is a veteran podcaster, who has labored long and hard against terrible obstacles to establish his niche in the New Media without even the intent of developing an overwhelmingly large audience. That is significant, and that is notable. He has accomplished more than I have in this regard--and I teach podcasting to others! He deserves recognition for his many accomplishments, which never cease to impress me (again, even though I may disagree with his IDEAS). I remain unsigned because I see no point to "joining" a web information tool that is so easily manipulated by fanatics. This topic should never have been raised in the first place, especially under such a transparent pretense. I've lost respect for Wikipedia, to even have to waste my time stating the obvious here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.56.138 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- — 155.229.56.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- DO NOT DELETE This attempt at censorship apparently based on nothing but a personal dislike of Mr Zubatys veiws is abhorrent.
Mr Zubaty is widely read and on a personal note his writtings have influenced my thinking in a number of areas,his writing is clear his arguments well thought out and well referenced for source. If censorship like this is allowed to continue then wikipedia will have failed in its object to be an open source of information and beome the site of group think that so many accuse it of being. Mr Zubaty has written several books and articles,and the article about him as far as Ican tell is factually accurate,leave it alone!Peter318200 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Peter318200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
MORE LINKS
- http://news.mensactivism.org/node/1635
- http://mensnewsdaily.com/2005/07/06/112070087985226306/
- http://menletter.org/articles/What%20Men%20Know%20That%20Women%20Don't.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.112.55 (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 94.173.112.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
have any of you taken a gander at FisherQueen's wiki page thingy?! what a horror show. rich and co., screw this wiki crap. if people like FisherQueen (yes, i'm judging) are responsible for administering this site and it's content, why would you want to be associated with it?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) get a load of this wiki-message: "If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."[reply]
why i "came here" wiki is none of your damn business... majority vote? oh, i see, if the reason must meet some effing guideline to post on this stupid, nonsensical lesbian feminazi site. EFF YOU WIKIPEDIA! ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.167 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rick Zubati is well know in his field. Wikipedia is a valuable place for looking up people who are hard to find in other places. I often use Wikipedia to research people who would otherwise be impossible to locate. So I think entries like these are important and certainly should not de deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.91.193 (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 92.1.91.193 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note. It is clear that supporters of Zubaty have been discussing the proposed deletion among themselves, and encouraging fellow supporters to weigh in. This would not necessarily be a problem, but the vast majority of those supporters either do not understand the notability criteria, or do not understand the reliable source guidelines, or have not yet read those rules closely. I understand that many of you have a serious problem with being told the rules by a woman, so I beg you to read the rules for yourselves- no matter how many supporters say 'do not delete,' they will be ignored if they are not explaining how Zubaty meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, supporting their answers with legitimate sources. I've tried several times to draw people's attention to the rules, and met mainly with personal insults indicating that, because I am a lesbian and a feminist, I must be making the rules up as I go along, to harm Zubaty. I am both a lesbian and a feminist, but the rules have been in place for years, and I didn't even participate in writing them - they were in place long before I joined Wikipedia. The rules were written mostly by men, so you can trust that they are good and right. Please, please, please, read the rules for yourself, and understand them, before making your decision about whether this article can be kept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big Picture. But isn't this losing sight of the big picture? I want to read something about Rich Zubaty. I turn to the Wikipedia and I find next to nothing. Why? Because rules is rules, apparently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.190.217.197 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Big picture? If you want to read something about Rich Zubaty, and don't think Wikipedia's rules are important to that, you should go to his web site- there is information there. If you want to help Wikipedia have an article about him, though, you'll need to follow Wikipedia's rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage of this guy outside of reviews of his books on websites that have "men" in their domain names. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've done some searching, but I can't really find anything that isn't self-published or single-purpose promotional sites (
but left at "weak" because I'm not certain on my assessment of said sites) -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete - not even particularly notable within the bounds of his own movement. Most of the arguments seem to be made by people unable to accept the underlying precepts we work by here: notability, verifiability, NPOV, that sort of trivia. All of these, of course, are trumped by his possession of The Truth™ in its pure and shiny form. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE If Rich Zubaty isn't notable then how did you find this site? What makes this site worth attacking? My guess is that many of you are not simply trying to obey Wikipedia rules, but rather fulfill a personal agenda. His videos are excellent, his thoughts are very clear, and Rich Zubaty is definitely NOTABLE to me. Given the unofficial nature of this site it seems absurd to question whether Zubaty's publishing methods are "official". 66.171.241.105 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 66.171.241.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Response What specific part of the notability criteria does he meet? What reliable, independent sources confirm that? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE None of this NOTABILITY business is as cut and dried as Fisherqueen would have us believe. “A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.”
These are the wiki criterion for notability.
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
The Zubaty article has provided you three in-depth references by independent sources: two book reviews and one personal interview. Plus he's been on WGN radio twice, BBC TV, the Montel Williams TV show, and hundreds more electronic media shows. And then there are his hundred hours of podcasts and foreign media appearances, like Australian Broadcasting Company TV, CFRB Toronto and literally hundreds more, most of them pre-computer and pre-google, so you don't have any handy dandy references to those... do you? I read an in-depth article about him in about 1994 or 1995 in the Chicago Sun-Times and I cannot find that in a Sun-Times site search. I saw him on Chicago Tribune TV, CLTV, around the same time, and find nothing of that via google. Just because it's not on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Zubaty certainly meets this criterion.
Another criterion for notability is: "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[7]"
You can see from the outpouring of support that Zubaty has made a recognized contribution to his field that has endured for 20 years. He has an international following despite the fact that he has been an anti-corporate crusader, particularly critical of corporate media. Have you NO idea what that means? That means academia and corporate media WON'T give him a platform. Just like Noam Chomsky. But Zubaty doesn't get by teaching linguistics at MIT to pay his bills. He advocates full time for men and against corporations and war.
Zubaty meets this criterion.
Then we have: Academics Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably INFLUENTIAL IN THE WORLD OF IDEAS without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
Rich Zubaty is an original thinker who has brought new memes into play: Men are not the oppressors of women, women are not morally superior to men, men are better at relationships than women, women are more materialistic than men, and dozens more. He is NOTABLE as an ACADEMIC who did not bow to political correctness to hang onto his job. And he STILL has secondary sources to attest to his notability.
Zubaty clearly meets this criterion.
opinion makers: 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
That is clear from all the postings of support which represent a tiny slice of his readership. His books have been selling on amazon.com for ten years.
Zubaty meets this criterion too.
There is also a wiki criterion I ran across but cannot re-find that said just because someone is famous doesn’t mean they have done something. Zubaty is not famous. But he has done something. He is is notable for his original contributions to revealing the societal prejudices against a despised and demonized class of underlings – men.
And then let's look at this. Here is a person who did one thing, in 1967, spent the time since in and out of mental institutions, and has NO references whatsoever, but no one is putting flags on her article or hounding her about notability. OH...but she's a feminist. How precious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulamith_Firestone
Is wikipedia just a politically correct dumpster for forty-year-old bread? 186.16.7.3 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 186.16.7.3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I appreciate that you are at least trying to make an argument based on Wikipedia policies, that's somewhat refreshing in what has mostly been a shouting match so far. Let me just mention a few things: How many people are participating in this discussion is not going to be considered proof that Mr. Zubaty is notable. Just about anyone can find ten people on the internet who share their views. The argument that other articles exist that are no better or even much worse is generally not considered valid. This just means there is some more cleaning up that needs doing. That you picked a radical feminist out of the millions of biographies on here as your example is telling of your own agenda. If you think it should be deleted, register an account and nominate it, and we can discuss that on exactly the same terms as this article. This is what needs to be made clear here: this is not about the validity of Mr. Zubaty's positions or the men's movement in general, it is only about whether he meets the general notability guideline, and a decent case has been presented that he does. What would be good would be if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article, that would go a long way toward sealing the deal.
- As a more general comment to everyone participating, please keep your remarks on topic and do not resort to attacking the participants as persons, as opposed to refuting their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox: Please tell us exactly what you mean by, "if those sources were actually being used to flesh out the article" ... and we will do that. Whatever it is. Can you refer us to a particular example page where this kind of "fleshing out" is being done? What it looks like? We're new at this. We don't get it. We need some guidance.
Here are more online pages with mentions of Rich Zubaty, from other wikipedia articles to the Wall Street Journal to third party podcast rebroadcasters and feminist blogs. How do we use these in his article?:
Sterling Institute of relationship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Institute_of_Relationships#cite_note-zubaty-4
Wall Street Journal mention of Zubaty's Imipeach Bush impeach-ins: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003975
The Harvard Crimson: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1995/7/25/take-back-the-penis-rally-held/
book review: http://lionwiki.taoriver.net/cgi-bin/wiki/WhatMenKnowThatWomenDont
book review http://fathersforlife.org/sex_politics_10.htm
third party podcast directory: http://www.learnoutloud.com/Podcast-Directory/Social-Sciences/Current-Events/The-Rude-Guy-Podcast/16854
Here is a posting of an article by Rich Zubaty on a feminist web site/blog. What do we do with it? How do we use it to flesh out his page. http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/41433/
- Basically the same thing you would do if you were back in school writing a paper. Read the sources, find some relevant idea or piece of information, express that same point in your own words in the article, and cite your source. Click here for guidance on citing sources within the article. Click here for the Wikipedia manual of style, but don't think we actually expect you to read the whole thing. Details such as the article structure, tone, etc, can always be cleaned up. What's important is getting the most relevant verifiable facts into the article. By the way, Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles, but cannot be based on those other articles. I know it sounds weird, but we do not meet our own definition of a reliable source, and we don't want to duplicate content. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beeblebrox. Is this the KIND of thing you mean????? 194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, this is not what is meant, those are ALL primary sources, please see Wikipedia:NOR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, stating "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.". These sources are not independent from the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and no. What is presented below based entirely on the writing of Mr. Zubaty as opposed to writings about him. You can use such primary sources to add content to an article, but the focus for purposes of this debate is establishing notability, which must be done with reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. This is basically a litany of his various memes, and is not really presented in a neutral tone. For example, instead of made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like its run by women something like Zubaty asserts in his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" that "we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it is run by women". I realize that many of you feel as though this is an established fact, but Wikipedia cannot present it as though it is one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am adding another no to this, as this is about the book What Men Know That Women Don't BY Rich Zubaty. This might fit on the former of the two pages, but not on the latter (I have therefore removed it from the page with a similar edit summary). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough non-trivial, indepth coverage of the subject. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Memes[edit]
In What Men Know That Women Don’t Rich Zubaty made the observation that we live in a world that appears to be run by men but feels like it's run by women, because the men who run it promulgate female values, female memes. [1] Our schools, churches, government, and businesses are all female friendly institutions, downright harmful to males. These sell-out men, garbed in female values, he called “manholes”. [2]And then he offered countervailing memes. In an era when men were demonized, women were glorified, and corporations were lionized he made the case that: Men are good. Women are not morally superior to men. [3]Corporations are bad. Men are not the oppressors of women. [4] Men are the protectors and providers for women. [5] If women have the right to equal access to jobs, then fathers have the right to equal treatment as parents. Women are not smarter than men. Women are more analytical than men. [6]Men are more skilled at relationships than women. [7]Men are more intuitive than women. [8]Women are more materialistic than men. Men are more spiritual than women. [9]Men have deeper feelings than women. Feminism was the biggest scab labor movement in history and the death knell of both the union movement and the grassroots sixties revolt. We live in a corporatocracy where corporations rule, and democracy has become emasculated. Feminists are corporate whores. [10]Feminism killed leftist politics in America by emphasizing social issues over economic issues.
194.154.216.94 (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 13
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 26
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 20
- ^ Rich Zubaty (2010). What Men Know That Women Don't (Video). Maui: YouTube. Retrieved 2010-05-11.
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 19
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 19
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 18
- ^ Rich Zubaty, What Men Know That Women Don't , (College Station TX.: Virtualbookworm, 2001), Page 15
- Do Not Delete* Rich Zubaty is a well-known author in the field of mens/fathers rights and gender roles and should have a page here. 98.207.158.108 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What specific part of the notability criteria does he meet? What reliable, independent sources confirm that information? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence on notability
A Tug-of-War Over Custody
Fathers Deprived of Their Rights In America's `Covert Matriarchy'
Click here for complete article
Author: Rich Zubaty
Date: October 29, 1994
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Page: 18
Word Count: 785
Excerpt:
The Unlawful Visitation Interference Law was intended to diminish conflict between
divorced parents who share custody of their children. It also frees parents from the
expense of going back into divorce courts to straighten out visitation disputes. Some
charge, however, that it is being misused to harass ex-spouses...
................
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/old/nw951225.htm
The following article was syndicated in over 50 major newspapers.
DOES GOVERNMENT DRIVE FATHERS AWAY?
By Stuart A. Miller and Rich Zubaty, Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, December 25-31, 1995, page 30
85% of prisoners, 78% of high school dropouts, 82% of teenage girls who become pregnant, the majority of drug and alcohol abusers -- all come from single-mother-headed households. Less than 1% of any of these categories come from single-father-headed households. This seems to indicate that the problems children encounter are not related to single-parent households, but are related specifically to single-mother-headed households. So, should we blame the mothers or the fathers? Perhaps, neither... --Cathbard (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Cathbard, that is yet another article by Rich Zubaty. Again, many people have written a lot, but this is about who wrote about Rich Zubaty, independently of Rich Zubaty himself (well, it could be a significant interview with Rich Zubaty, but Rich Zubaty should not be the, or one of the, writers himself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double Standards
- Beetstra deletes information on "What Men Know That Women Don't" because, he says, this is not about Zubaty but a book he wrote. Yet I notice Beetstra did not hack away the details on "The Female Eunuch" in the article on Germaine Greer. Should I go into this article and clear it way for consistency? Or shall I wait for Beetstra to do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 11:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, could you now please find an argument why this SHOULD be inserted here, in stead of saying 'but it is there so it should be here'. Thanks. (and to answer the other half .. have you actually READ what that section is telling, and compared the CONTENT of that section with what you added? Clearly not. By the way .. have you actually also read what the other reason I mentioned for removal was .. now again look at Germaine Greer#The Female Eunuch. Woohoo .. an independent reference!! Sigh). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If other crap exists then the other crap should be deleted with equal vigour. "The nuclear family being bad for wimmin" is not about Greer. It's about the other crap she wrote. So go ahead Beets. Please DELETE that section in Greer's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is solely for discussion of whether the article Rich Zubaty should be kept or deleted, that is, whether or not the subject meets the notability criteria, as verified by reliable, independent sources. If you have useful suggestions about how the article on Germaine Greer could be improved, you can discuss those ideas at Talk:Germaine Greer. Bear in mind that most of the people who actively work on this article will probably be unfamiliar with the disagreement about Rich Zubaty, so trying to make a point about this discussion by disrupting that one is unlikely to be helpful. If you have information about how Rich Zubaty meets the notability criteria, or what independent sources confirm that, sharing it would be more helpful for keeping the article- nothing you do at Germaine Greer is likely to have any effect on this discussion. In other words: if you oppose the deletion of Rich Zubaty, only information about Rich Zubaty will avoid that deletion. There is nothing you can say about Germaine Greer that would even be relevant to this discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there are no double standards. We question here the inclusion of Rich Zubaty, where there is hardly any reason why we should include the article, you are free to discuss the inclusion of Germaine Greer or the section (on its talkpage), but that is NOT going to influence this discussion in any form. And still you don't answer questions, and please do not change my name in any form. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Word manipulation? It's simply fact - the Rich Zubaty article will be either kept or deleted based solely on what reliable third-party coverage can be found to attest to his notability, as per WP:N and WP:RS, and nothing on any other article will make any difference to that - and that's all that FisherQueen is pointing out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no WikiPolice. There's just us, all the editors- that includes you- reading the rules, and trying to make the encyclopedia meet that standard. You can help this article meet the rules, too- you're my equal at Wikipedia, both of us following the same rules. I looked for reliable, independent sources writing about Zubaty, and I couldn't find any. I asked the Zubaty supporters who came here to help me, but they keep just giving me links to things written by Zubaty, which I'm sure are interesting reading but don't have anything to do with the question of notability. Zubaty doesn't have a publisher for his books- he pays to have them printed himself. I could pay the same company to print a book version of this deletion discussion- that wouldn't make me a notable author. What makes him more notable than me? Only the attention that others have paid to his book. Is he widely hated for his views, or widely supported? Has Esquire profiled him, or has Ms Magazine written an article denouncing him? You say that the Washington Times once published an article by him; have they ever published an article about him? Those sources would save this article, if only we could find them. If only his supporters could help, instead of just having fun feeling persecuted. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Word manipulation? It's simply fact - the Rich Zubaty article will be either kept or deleted based solely on what reliable third-party coverage can be found to attest to his notability, as per WP:N and WP:RS, and nothing on any other article will make any difference to that - and that's all that FisherQueen is pointing out. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again. Here are the FACTS on wiki notability. Not FisherQueens mere interpretation that Zubaty is no more notable than her. Maybe she SHOULD have a page. That has nothing to do with whether Zubaty does or not.
This notability guideline for biographies[2] is NOT policy;
A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is NOT conclusive proof that a subject should not be included;
Academics
Shortcuts:
WP:ACADEMIC
WP:PROF
WP:TEACH
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)
Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas WITHOUT their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
Rich Zubaty is a philosopher. A meme-inventor and -spreader. His ideas stand for who he is and when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if the DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him. They are metioning his memes. Bill Maher, for one, has stolen memes directly out of Surviving the Feminization of America and used them on his TV shows without accredidation.
Zubaty is notable.
2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
We already liisted all the dozens of memes for which he is notable on the Zubaty page and they got erased. we are not wasting our time listing them again.
--Cathbard (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's your problem: listing the memes and claiming they are notable is not going to cut it. You need to verify that statement with an independent reliable source. That's got to be at least the fifteenth time this has been explained in this debate. You guys need to quit trying to make this about FisherQueen or Rich Zubaty, it's about proving notability through reliable sources. I'm not even saying that what you have just stated isn't true, but it's got to be verified. Although it seems there is a vast maze of policies and guidelines here, we actually only have five basic rules. Verifiability is one of those, and I'm afraid it is not open to negotiation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that "when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if the DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him," but people have been having those conversations for hundreds of years or more. I'm pretty sure that he didn't invent those ideas; is he hundreds of years old? But if he did, you should have no problem citing a gender-studies textbook which credits him for them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I was involved in the publishing of Transitions, the newsletter of the National Coalition For Men (ncfm.org) for over 10 years, including 4 years as chief editor. Some of our past issues are archived at (http://www.californiamenscenters.org/transitionsbrown.html). NCFM is an educational organization that examines discrimination against men and boys. I can assure you that Rich Zubaty is notable in the field of men's issues. As evidence of this, we printed an excerpt of his book "What Men Know That Women Don't" in the Nov/Dec 2000 issue of Transitions. We printed a review of his book "The Corporate Cult" in the March/April 2002 issue, and a news article about his internet podcast in the Jan/Feb 2006 issue.
Wikipedia should consider that the field of men's rights does not get a lot of attention, for various political reasons. That Zubaty was able to earn the list of references that have been provided in this discussion should be seen as a noteworthy accomplishment. Many of the references are from web sites related to men's issues, but many are not, including the WSJ and The Harvard Crimson. As men's issues is still a growing field, many of our references will come from sources with an interest in the subject.
For verifiability, all you need to do is go to Amazon and see that his books are for sale. The content of Zubaty's writing is not in question; the article simply states that he wrote those books. They are available and the sales have not been insignificant.
The article does need to be improved, and this can be done once this case is settled.
Jwleath (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response on behalf of Rich Rubaty
RE: "when people talk about whether women are morally superior to men, or men are NOT the oppressors of women, even if they DON'T mention his name, they are mentioning him," but people have been having those conversations for hundreds of years or more. (says FisherQueen)
OK, time for Fisher Queen to ACTUALLY CITE SOMETHING instead of pontificating. Where exactly, in the hundreds of years of history before Rich Zubaty, does anyone at all talk about how women are not morally superior to men? Or men are not the oppressors of women? Where? Zubaty introduced these memes 20 years ago when merely saying something favorable about men was considered an assault on women. When most academics were cowed by political correctness and fear of getting fired for speaking out on things like equal rights for men: in fathering, in healthcare, in life and death.
We are not fooled by your posturing. Some high level administrator has decided you don't want his page on Wikipedia and now you are lurching about digging up reasons to exclude him, even though your guidelines say that philosophers, like Zubaty, people who GENERATE IDEAS, have a much LOWER threshold of being expected to have been quoted in mass media.
There is a massive industry with tens of thousands of employees and publications on thousands of campuses world wide called Women's Studies. They are always hungry for new material over which to churn out new reviews, and claim they got “published”. Men's studies can, at most, be found on a handful of campuses. THAT has to be taken into consideration. Men are not less important than women. But no one makes a career out of men’s studies. There is not a mountain of literature. One does it for the passions behind the issues. Getting a handful of mentions is an achievement in that field. Who else do you know who got any publicity at all?
We gave you links to the Wall Street Journal. How bout this?
From the WSJ Opinion Archives
by JAMES TARANTO Friday, September 5, 2003 4:06 P.M. EDT
Zubaty's So Batty
At an "impeach-in" yesterday in Ithaca, N.Y., "the strumming of author Rich Zubaty's guitar floated in front of See Spot Community Arts Space, accompanying lyrics such as 'There was a president lying to me' and 'We want our country back,' " reports the Cornell Daily Sun....
Zubaty tells the Sun that "we have the worst president in a couple of hundred years,"...
This Zubaty guy is a real piece of work: The Sun notes that he is the author of two books, "Your Brain Is Not Your Own" and "The Corporate Cult." The paper, however, misses another Zubaty tome, "What Men Know That Women Don't," described on his Web site as "the book that unshames men and frees your brainwaves for recovery from Feminism." .....
Plus...we gave you links to The Harvard Crimson, and Cornell Sun (2003 Impeach Bush), where he has been talked ABOUT, NOT where he has been published. You ignored them. He’s been interviewed on over 200 radio shows in Chicago, Toronto, New York, San Francisco, Tampa, Sydney, Perth, Seattle, and hundreds of smaller stations that receive syndicated programming. Plus TV: BBC, CLTV Chicago, ABC TV in San Francisco. Millions of people have heard him interviewed about his ideas. Millions! Some of those shows were taped, but few if any were transcribed into transcripts that can be found on the internet. So what?
This is a whitewash. We keep giving you evidence. You keep moving the goalposts. The only so-called editor who has actually helped out and tried to make things better is Dirk Beetstra. Nobly so because some of Zubaty’s rabid respondents took a bite out of him early on. But now HE apparently is getting browbeat by somebody in the inner circle. But no one else helps. They just give us links. Fuck links.
Maybe the time has come for you to prove us wrong. For the burden of proof to be on YOU that he is NOT notable. This is a witch hunt, only this time the witches are doing the hunting.
And what you don't understand, and what Zubaty's supporters who are writing into this deletion page DO understand, is that this is exactly what Zubaty writes his books about. How after a creative explosion of virile positive male energy launches virtually every civilization and institution, there come the petty foggers and bean counters and formulaic thinkers and rule keepers, and they keep that institution going far past the point of it being useless to everybody. If wikipedia is just a place to go to get watered down information that is available at other places on the web, then why go? You are destroying your own institution by refusing to adhere to your fundamental principle. To wit: Failure to meet these criteria is NOT conclusive proof that a subject should not be included.
Understandably you need other and more evidence, and that’s just what we’ve provided, over and over and over again. Millions of people have heard his memes. We’ve told you where. From him, and from those like Bill Maher who stole memes directly from him and will never admit that because then they would have to compensate him. And even, to Zubaty’s undying shame and embarrassment, his name and men’s activism was mentioned by Rush Limbaugh and reached a few million ears within five minutes. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. Cannot be owned. They are stolen, and passed around, and then they influence millions of people. But you don’t care about that because you are not creative people. You have made up your mind to exclude him and you are just trying to find a plausible excuse.
I asked him about this. He wrote back: “That’s OK. I was pissed off at first but now I don’t care. Wikipedia is not an enlightened publication like I thought it was. Those are not the kind of people I want to keep company with. I appreciate all the folks who have tried to help, I really do, but it’s OK if they just delete my page. I would rather that people who google-search my name go directly to my web page. And the hell with wikipedia. It’s a red herring. A detour into nowhere. If they can’t make a judgment call to provide some rare and unusual forms of information that are not already provided somewhere else on the net, then what are they for? Who cares?” 194.154.216.90 (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "Where exactly, in the hundreds of years of history before Rich Zubaty, does anyone at all talk about how women are not morally superior to men? Or men are not the oppressors of women? Where? Zubaty introduced these memes 20 years ago when merely saying something favorable about men was considered an assault on women."
- What a crock! These very issues were being debated when I was a university student, more than 30 years ago and long before anyone had ever heard of Zubaty (and in a land far away from America). And they weren't new then - we just didn't use the word "meme" back in those days. (And no, I can't provide references, because our discussions, like those of countless generations before us, were not notable either) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Actually, I can provide a reference for it being a a bunch of crock.;-) See the reference by Boyd, Susan B. et al. below, where she lists his book amongst others derivative of the ideas expressed in the original works in the area dating back to the 1970s. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Actually, I can provide a reference for it being a a bunch of crock.;-) See the reference by Boyd, Susan B. et al. below, where she lists his book amongst others derivative of the ideas expressed in the original works in the area dating back to the 1970s. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break[edit]
- Comment The "meme" section in the article is pointless. The ideas are neither new nor original and do nothing to establish his notability. Most of them aren't even from him, they are comments by reviewers, self-published on internet forums and other sites with reader-generated content. They can be used to document that his work is discussed on such web sites but not to establish his notability. It's pretty obvious that the "keepers" don't understand Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources and why they are a requirement for establishing notability and verifying content. There's no use explaining this again. Their view is that this basic requirement should be dispensed with here because Mr. Zubaty is a special case. I'm afraid that's not going to happen, so perhaps we could see if the fact that his writings are discussed in reliable sources (albeit briefly) qualifies as notability. His work is mentioned in the following publications:
Kaye, Miranda; Tolmie, Julia, "Discoursing Dads: The Rhetorical Devices of Fathers' Rights Groups", Melbourne University Law Review, April 1998
Klein, Ellen R., Undressing feminism: A philosophical exposé, (Series: Paragon Issues in Philosophy), Paragon House, 2002. ISBN1557788111
Boyd, Susan B. et al.. Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change, University of British Columbia Press, 2007. ISBN077481411X
Ducat, Stephen, The wimp factor: gender gaps, holy wars, and the politics of anxious masculinity, Beacon Press, 2004. ISBN 0807043443
Parke, Ross D. and Brott, Armin A. Throwaway dads: the myths and barriers that keep men from being the fathers, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1999.
Culture Wars (magazine), "Selling Contempt", Ultramontane Associates/American Center for Law and Justice, Vol. 20, 2000.
I also have subscription access to the Highbeam archives. Zubaty appeared briefly on the BBC2 programme Counterblast in January 2000:
"After 15 minutes, however, he was starting to run out of steam. He'd already called on the services of a like-minded American with the unlikely name of Rich Zubaty, described simply as "an author", who provided the usual array of meaningless statistics that these occasions demand. "Did you know that 19 out of every 20 people who die on the job are men?" Rich announced, at which George could only shake his head and mutter "Middle-class dykes", in a distracted sort of way."
(Preston, John, "Blast those dungarees", Sunday Telegraph, 30 January 2000)
I'm neutral as to whether the above is enough to establish notability, but at least it's something concrete to consider, and it's probably the limit to what can be found in reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:208.102.84.106, I've removed your recent comment, in which you repeated the entire long comment you made earlier. Your comment is already on this page for anyone to read; it is not helpful to repeat it. Especially since it's already been responded to- if Zubaty did indeed invent these ideas, you will need to verify that by citing the reliable, independent sources which discuss his invention of those ideas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Voceditenore, I wouldn't tend to think that the mentions I could see in those articles would lead to a claim for notability; they seemed like fairly trivial mentions, and none of them actually made any claim for his significance as a thinker- if we relied on those sources for information, the article would have to describe Zubaty as a strange, mentally unstable kook with an internet following, since that's how those articles describe him. Of course, several of those were just abstracts, so I don't know how he's portrayed in them, or how significant the writing in them may be, but none of them seems to have Zubaty as its main subject. Still, other users might disagree. It's becoming apparent that if an article on this person it kept, it's going to be the constant target of inappropriate additions from people who don't think Wikipedia's rules should be followed... but that isn't, in itself, a reason to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree with you, but I've seen AfDs where this kind of coverage was considered to be minimally sufficient to establish notability, so I thought I'd offer it. If nothing else, it demonstrates to the pro-Zubaty discussants here, most of whom don't understand it yet, what types of sources are required. From what I can see from the snippets, Culture Wars is the only article that discusses one of his books in any kind of depth and it's still pretty short. As you can see from the others, the mentions are very brief, and not complimentary. His first book was published in the late 1990's. Fifteen years is an awfully long time to go without any significant coverage of either him or his ideas or his books in reliable secondary sources. To me it speaks volumes. Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Voceditenore, I wouldn't tend to think that the mentions I could see in those articles would lead to a claim for notability; they seemed like fairly trivial mentions, and none of them actually made any claim for his significance as a thinker- if we relied on those sources for information, the article would have to describe Zubaty as a strange, mentally unstable kook with an internet following, since that's how those articles describe him. Of course, several of those were just abstracts, so I don't know how he's portrayed in them, or how significant the writing in them may be, but none of them seems to have Zubaty as its main subject. Still, other users might disagree. It's becoming apparent that if an article on this person it kept, it's going to be the constant target of inappropriate additions from people who don't think Wikipedia's rules should be followed... but that isn't, in itself, a reason to delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:208.102.84.106, I've removed your recent comment, in which you repeated the entire long comment you made earlier. Your comment is already on this page for anyone to read; it is not helpful to repeat it. Especially since it's already been responded to- if Zubaty did indeed invent these ideas, you will need to verify that by citing the reliable, independent sources which discuss his invention of those ideas. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to: Reply. Actually, I can provide a reference for it being a a bunch of crock.;-) See the reference by Boyd, Susan B. et al. below, where she lists his book amongst others derivative of the ideas expressed in the original works in the area dating back to the 1970s. Voceditenore (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Boyd, Susan B. book referenced by Voceditnore, word-searched for “moral superiority”, Zubaty’s meme, there is NO reference. NONE. Have a look.
Let’s put the smugness on hold Boing! said Zebedee. You’ve crossed over now into being just flat out liars. This is a whitewash.
- Yes, call me a liar - that's sure to help your case when the reviewing admin examines all this and makes a decision -- Boing! said Zebedee
The ONLY place I have ever heard the moral superiority of women questioned besides Zubaty was when private England tortured those Abu Ghraib prisoners and Ellen Goodman said she had: always believed in the moral superiority of women up until that moment.
- The sparsity of your personal experience and your apparent lack of exposure to the wider world outside of recent male American culture have no bearing on this discussion -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real tyranny is feminism. Your bald attempts to control information are precisely the reason Zubaty sells books world wide and precisely why he should be included in wikipedia. If wikipedia has any balls that is. If wikipedia is about spreading information and not simply just a politicized tool of powerful institutions like feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.170.227 (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it appears that Boyd does not use the phrase 'moral superiority;' but then, her mention of Zubaty was quite trivial and only in passing; she doesn't seem to consider him a very significant writer. Your claim that Zubaty 'sells books world wide' could be a claim to notability; have any of his books appeared on the best-seller list of any country? What reliable sources would verify that? Wikipedia does not have 'balls,' because it is a web site, and not an animal or person. Wikipedia is not political; in fact, its rules are carefully written to ensure fully neutrality, which is why, even though I'm very different from Zubaty politically, I'm still perfectly willing to keep an article about him on Wikipedia, and even help to improve it, if only I could find any sources of information I could use to verify any information at all about him. It's fine that you like Zubaty, and that you are interested in his ideas, but that doesn't have anything to do with this discussion. If the problem is that you haven't read WP:BIO and WP:RS yet, even though I've linked to them in this discussion several times, you really should read the rules for a clearer understanding of what this discussion is about. If the problem is that you want to change or eliminate WP:BIO and WP:RS as Wikipedia rules, this discussion isn't the place to do that- you can try on the talk pages of those rules, but you should be aware that they've developed over years, and most Wikipedia editors think they are a very fair way to keep the encyclopedia neutral - to keep it from becoming a 'politicized tool,' a goal which I think you agree with. If you are not interested in Wikipedia, or its rules, but simply want to have a discussion about Zubaty and the rightness of his ideas, I'm sure there are internet forums that would be appropriate places to have such a discussion. Continuing to make comments that don't include reliable, independent sources is, I'm afraid, a waste of your valuable time, since those comments will be simply ignored by the reviewing administrator, who will only weigh the votes that relate directly to Wikipedia's rules, ignoring those that don't address or don't understand the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, 72.235.170.227, you've never heard of anyone before Rich Zubaty who has questioned the moral superiority of women? Have you read Kant or Rousseau? I think you'll find them a real eye-opener. Their works are out of copyright, so you can even read them on the internet. Plenty of further reading on the issue here but alas not here (apart from Zubaty's self-published tomes, of course). Voceditenore (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on my own research (see above). He's mentioned in a few reliable sources here and there, but only in passing. It's been proposed that he is a prominent theoretician in his area, but there is no evidence to support this. It's been fifteen years since he self-published the only work which gets even passing mention. Yes, he has fans on internet forums (many of whom can be found on this page), but in all that time no scholar or serious journalist has even bothered to publish a detailed attack him or refute his arguments in detail, let alone consider him a a seminal contributor to the field. It speaks volumes and it cannot be put down to his views. There are plenty of figures out there who are left-wing activists or spectacularly non-pc, or even just plain loony. Nevertheless, coverage of them and their ideas in depth, if only in criticism, can easily be found in multiple reliable sources. Voceditenore (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete to return to some objective factors, his works are in almost no libraries--which is hardly surprising, since they are all self-published. [22] DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have asked three uninvolved admins, Nancy (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and Bongwarrior (talk · contribs), to keep watch on this page so that comments such as this and this can be dealt with swiftly.
I ask that the editors commenting here focus on the content of the article, not on the character of contributors. Cunard (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Deletions
Dear Ms. Zebedee, it seems you have missed the point entirely. It’s clear that the claim made was that: Voceditenore lied by saying that Zubaty’s original meme appeared in a book where it did not appear at all. Not at all. Not once. That was the lie. And nobody amongst the so-called wiki editors even bothered to check the lie. Thank goodness one of us dumb novices did. Then Fisherqueen took the discussion further afield by claiming Boyd’s mention of Zubaty was minor anyway. Yes, like Rousseau and Kant and even Tolstoy before him, Zubaty discussed the deficiencies of female morality. But he took it out of 17th century drawing room intrigues and updated it dead center to strident feminist America 1993. And he gave it a name. He didn’t call it a large fish that breathes air and sometimes sports a pale hue. He called it a “White Whale”. A meme! He said “Women are not morally superior to men” in absolutely clear unacademic populist American English. That’s what a meme is. Not merely an idea. But a concise FORMULATION of an idea. A soundbite for your mind. That is one of his dozen or more original philosophic contributions. And THAT was the entire point we were trying to make. He IS an original thinker and people like you can’t even keep up with his thoughts. No wonder we can’t find any quotes!
And in response to DGG. Zubaty has had books in hundreds of libraries but most of them have been stolen. Removed from the system. Denver public library had four copies at the SAME time the demand was so high in the mid 1990s. In an age of feminist harpy saboteurs it is no wonder his books cannot be publicly found. You people are grasping at straws to support an opinion you have held for years. That all men are assholes and you have to stop them any way you can. If you are wikipedia editors then wikipedia is doomed. You are worried about smoke detectors while your airliner is going down in flames. Time for new rules for editors. No harpies. No closed minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lew Loot (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 May 2010
- Well then, it should be easy for you to find multiple independent sources that attest to his formulation of the idea, shouldn't it? That's the whole point, which several of us are trying hard to get across - if Zubaty is responsible for any notable philosophic contributions, then you need reliable independent sources to attest to them if you wish to include them in a Wikipedia article. And if they are genuine original thoughts that haven't been accepted and discussed by any reliable sources yet, then that counts as WP:OR and cannot be included. So please, go ahead and find some reliable sources if they exist, and then you'll get my support for inclusion. (Oh, and it's interesting that you assume I'm a "Ms" - do you not think that's perhaps a bit of a sexist assumption?) -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "All men are assholes; I have to stop them any way I can" is not an opinion that has been expressed by anyone in this discussion, nor, I think, is it an opinion that is held by anyone in this discussion. If you want "new rules for new editors," because Zubaty's supporters aren't able to follow, or don't support, Wikipedia's rules, the Wiki software is free; you can create your own wiki and make any rules you want for it. Or if you want Wikipedia to change its rules, you can start that conversation- but Wikipedia's rules aren't made on one obscure deletion discussion, so you'll need to take your ideas for new rules to the appropriate place, to persuade the community that your new rules will make a better, more reliable encyclopedia. But right now, if this article is going to be kept, it'll be because we've found reliable, independent sources that confirm that Zubaty is a well-known and important inventor of original sentences like "Women are not morally superior to men." You know, yesterday, I said, "Please sit down; it's time to start class." I wasn't copying anyone else; I created that sentence myself, out of my own brain- and yet, I still wasn't the first to say it, nor was it such an important thought that it's likely to be chronicled for the ages. I could type it, and pay a printer to put it in a book, and buy a dozen copies of that book, and mail them to libraries- I could have that finished by the end of the week, and it would only cost a few hundred dollars. By the end of the week, I could be exactly as notable as Rich Zubaty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mens' Studies Press (founded in 1992) publishes five peer-reviewed journals, one of which is the journal of the American Men's Studies Association. I searched all five journals from 1992 to the present for "Zubaty" and found not even a mention. I also searched "Zubaty" in their International Guide to Literature on Masculinity: A Bibliography with zero results. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "All men are assholes; I have to stop them any way I can" is not an opinion that has been expressed by anyone in this discussion, nor, I think, is it an opinion that is held by anyone in this discussion. If you want "new rules for new editors," because Zubaty's supporters aren't able to follow, or don't support, Wikipedia's rules, the Wiki software is free; you can create your own wiki and make any rules you want for it. Or if you want Wikipedia to change its rules, you can start that conversation- but Wikipedia's rules aren't made on one obscure deletion discussion, so you'll need to take your ideas for new rules to the appropriate place, to persuade the community that your new rules will make a better, more reliable encyclopedia. But right now, if this article is going to be kept, it'll be because we've found reliable, independent sources that confirm that Zubaty is a well-known and important inventor of original sentences like "Women are not morally superior to men." You know, yesterday, I said, "Please sit down; it's time to start class." I wasn't copying anyone else; I created that sentence myself, out of my own brain- and yet, I still wasn't the first to say it, nor was it such an important thought that it's likely to be chronicled for the ages. I could type it, and pay a printer to put it in a book, and buy a dozen copies of that book, and mail them to libraries- I could have that finished by the end of the week, and it would only cost a few hundred dollars. By the end of the week, I could be exactly as notable as Rich Zubaty. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based upon complete lack of notability evidence from secondary sources. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep. I've found a few extra sources:
- A couple of recommendations of his book by John Waters (columnist) (and fathers' rights activist) in the Irish Times.[23]. One is very brief, the other is a more extensive description of the book and Zubaty's ideas.
- An article that interviews him (among others) in the Spokesman-Review [24] I have full copies of all 3 of these articles.
- A multi-database search of scholarly journals found only one brief mention of his work (as a "misogynistic diatribe")[25]
- I also have to hand a number of books about the fathers' rights movement in the US, including Farrell's Father and Child Reunion; Crossley's Defiant Dads: FR activists in America; and Gavanas' Fatherhood Politics in the United States. Zubaty is not mentioned or referenced at all, which is curious for someone who has claimed to have been an inventor the FR movement.
- Overall, I have very mixed feelings; the vociferous group of Zubaty supporters clearly exaggerate the importance of Zubaty in the field of men's/fathers rights based on the reliable sources available. However, I believe that these new articles, along with the numerous other (generally very brief) mentions in books, newspapers etc over a long period of time push him over the edge into notability. However, I should point out to his supporters that if the article does remain, it will need to reflect what has been said about Zubaty and his ideas in reliable sources, which is by no means 100% positive. For example, I count three very solid sources (including FR activists) that describe his ideas as misogynistic.[26][27][28]. Zubaty's life and views can be neutrally presented (quite unlike the "meme" section proposed above, or this Zubaty-written version) but the evaluations of others will need to be included too. Having an article on WP can be a very mixed blessing. --Slp1 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - None of that stuff (the Waters, etc.) constitutes the requisite "substantial coverage"; this still fails to meet our standards of notability. We're not talking Phyllis Schlaffly (or even Fred Phelps) here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all a matter of judgment, of course, about what constitutes substantial coverage. The Waters (in particular) and Spokesman articles are certainly more than brief mentions; personally I believe that these, in combination with other multiple independent sources available are enough to make the grade. --Slp1 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - None of that stuff (the Waters, etc.) constitutes the requisite "substantial coverage"; this still fails to meet our standards of notability. We're not talking Phyllis Schlaffly (or even Fred Phelps) here. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of enough coverage still, and the sheer amount of socking/meatpuppeteering here is obvious that there's little hope other than resorting to these methods. —fetch·comms 15:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Livingstone[edit]
- Marc Livingstone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, it is well-established that defeated candidates are not notable. PatGallacher (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability is presented. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Ugh. Shamelessly self-promotional soapbox. Only thing that comes vaguely near to a notability claim is being a runner-up in a not-really-that-high-profile poetry competition. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you like, but be advised that the candidate did not create this page himself, and therefore rejects any accusation of "self-promotion" (shameless or otherwise). The election is over now so the page has served its purpose. I can't help but feel there is an anti-communist aspect to this, however. The BNP candidate has a page, because he was on TV once; does that make him notable? Is TV a more legitimate form of culture than a poetry competition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.184.201 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now queried the notability of this person, this will now be considered on its merits. PatGallacher (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.Tracy Hutcheon 15:42, 13 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk)
- Which of the sources do you consider to cover Marc Livingstone significantly and reliably independently of the subject? All I can see are election data, campaign material from his party (hardly an independent source), and articles about other organisations which mention Marc Livingstone either trivially or not at all. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable as a politician and a poet. As a candidate he got less than 1% of the vote. As a poet he does not seem to have garnered independent recognition. --MelanieN (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Rodríguez Prat[edit]
- Francisco Rodríguez Prat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks NN to me. delete UtherSRG (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks NN to me, too. Joal Beal (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Call to Arms I[edit]
- Call to Arms I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/15th_April_2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N clearly says routine sports coverage is insufficent for a standalone article and there's nothing else to this article. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I concur with Papaursa. Janggeom (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing notable about this event. Agree with Papaursa. Astudent0 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George Lee (British politician)[edit]
- George Lee (British politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The first time this page was nominated, it was deleted. The second time, there was no consensus. A key part of the claim for Lee's notability then was that he was supposedly the first individual of Chinese ethnicity to become a Westminster candidate for a major party in the UK and could become the first Chinese MP. In edits to the page, I've already shown that that claim was mistaken -- he was one of 8 Chinese candidates for major parties and wasn't even the first nominated. Comments in that deletion discussion suggested this was worth re-visiting after the election, and we've now had the General Election. Lee came a distant third in his constituency. A third-place former political candidate is not notable under WP:POLITICIAN. Note also that the creator and main author of this page has acknowledged a major COI. Bondegezou (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do know George - but that does not constitute a "major COI" and I think the page is pretty NPoV. FWIW it seems that the AfD Nom may be motivated by political hostility, which could be seen as COI as well. There was plenty of WP:RS media coverage and this has continued after the last AfD debate so by our guidelines he should be kept. Political hostility should not play a part. NBeale (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to acknowledge NBeale's work to try to make this a good article. He acknowledges a conflict of interest, as was discussed in the 2nd AfD nomination when he chose to bow out of the discussion because of it. I will not quibble over whether it is a "major" COI and have struck that word from my opening statement! However, nearly every reference in the article relates to Lee's candidacy at the General Election, where he came a distant third. The argument presented then was that Lee could be the first Chinese MP in the House of Commons: he isn't and didn't come close and wasn't even the first Chinese candidate for a major party (although I'm sure NBeale was acting in good faith when he wrote that he was). WP:POLITICIAN is the obvious guide for us here and Lee clearly fails under those criteria. I also suggest that WP:ONEVENT is relevant here: nearly all the citations given refer to Lee's candidacy, so any relevant material should be re-directed to Holborn and St Pancras. One could find multiple local newspaper reports and occasional national newspaper reports about numerous losing candidates at the General Election, but WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ONEVENT stop the proliferation of articles. I do live in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency and I didn't vote for Lee; I don't think this constitutes a COI, particularly not after the election has happened. I have never met Mr Lee; he sounds like an interesting man and I'd be more than happy to meet him! Bondegezou (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete AS I recall the last AFD failed because he was a PPC and we should wait untill he has elected, he has not been elected. The main argument being keep at this time untill he wins or loses.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: i think there's enough "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to pass WP:BIO. WP:POLITICIAN point 3 says unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. Qwfp (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But what about WP:ONEVENT? Nearly every reliable secondary source in the article is about his candidacy, so WP:ONEVENT would argue that any usable material is re-directed to somewhere like Holborn and St Pancras. The couple of other sources only mention Lee in passing. Bondegezou (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But he is no longer a candidate as there is no election, at this time he is only a possible candidate. To be a candidate there has to be an election to contest. For example his p0age as a tory candidate no longer exits. It is WP:Crystal to assume he may be re-selceted.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The consensus is that failed Parliamentary candidates are NN (unless otherwise notable). The previous AFDs were only kept (or kept as redirect) pending the election. We now need to cull articles on failed candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete being Chinese in Britain is (thankfully) not notable. Nothing in the article suggests he meets notability criteria and he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I argued to keep at the previous AFD, but only because it was conceivable he might win election to Parliament. As he hasn't, I don't think there's enough here to pass WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. The coverage is limited and transitory; essentially, this is a WP:BLP1E candidate, with no evidence of lasting notability. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per reasons expressed at prior AfD. Notability is not fleeting.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are only two citations in the article from prior to the run-up to the election. One of these (The Independent, 1998) appears to be only a mention of Lee rather than an article about Lee. The other (Police Review, 1996) is not available online and one would suppose it to be a specialist publication. Almost the entire content of the article comes from coverage of his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And this was why he was nomianted the first time. He did not meet notability, he was only a PPC. The only reason it was retained was the assumption he might win and that then he would be notable, but only becasue he might be (not that he was) notable. He has ow lost, so he is not notable. At the very least we will need a rename, as he is ot a politicain any more, and certainly not notable as one.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cole Province[edit]
- Cole Province (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/15th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only thing in article is his fight record--a total of 7 fights since turning professional in 2007. Seven minor fights means it's very unlikely he was "fully professional". Papaursa (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources. Heck, no unreliable ones either... doesn't meet standards for WP:BLP--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In a search for sources, the most notable point I found was that the subject failed a drug test. Janggeom (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erick Vega[edit]
- Erick Vega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/15th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article consists solely of his boxing record and a description of his loss on The Contender. Unless all professional boxers are considered notable, I can find nothing to show this fighter passes WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete maybe merge into the article on the contender?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search for sources has not revealed anything strongly supporting notability. Janggeom (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything notable about this boxer. Astudent0 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suresh Gangadhar[edit]
- Suresh Gangadhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to show this poet as notable. The only non wiki or otherwise reliable source is the thehindu.com source, and that only has his name in a list of poets, no indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in RS (both English and Malayalam). The Hindu usually does a pretty good job of covering the Malayalam literary scene and he is not covered in it. Also google searches of his name in malayalam script (സുരേഷ് ഗംഗധര്)also return no hits. --Sodabottle (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Morales[edit]
- Crystal Morales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/15th April 2010, User:Jmcw37 as secretary.
WP:NRVE Wikipedia:WPMA/N "No reliable sources found to verify notability" jmcw (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —jmcw (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject does not appear notable (unremarkable competition record). Janggeom (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article makes no claims of notability. I could find nothing to indicate she's notable and the only independent coverage is local fight coverage which fails WP:N. Papaursa (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hey, I'd like to have articles about female professional boxers--that would be notable, one would think... except there's really no information here and nothing really noteworthy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing notable in the article and my search gave me nothing that says she passes WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Socialvest[edit]
- Socialvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non notable company that does customer loyalty programs or something similar. The google searches lead to Adam Ross, the founder's twitter account, and a few indications of some initial funding, a techjournal blurb from a month before the article was created. At best it's way too early, and more likely it's just another company with venture funding and no WP:RSs that discuss it in sufficient depth. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Was a CSD declined? This is an obvious A7, I think. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete website with no stated notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Simon and Andrew. Joal Beal (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zafer Gözet[edit]
- Zafer Gözet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An extremely non-notable politician. Leader of a party which got 0.0% of the votes in the last election. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to communist party of Norway. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although not a political figure with much column space about his figure, he is a party leader of a party with a long history and which has been very important at key moments in the country's history. I believe the sources are sufficient and I'm confident more could be presented to document his notability. __meco (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His position makes him notable. I have filled out the article using the 2 Norwegian ones, but was unable to find more sources. Hopefully someone else can for example find a ref for his re-election in 2007. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep references that make him notable cited in article, even "international" coverage from Turkey. Arsenikk (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Kotlyanskiy[edit]
- Edward Kotlyanskiy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe the subject meets the notability guidelines on biographies. There is no assertion or evidence that the subject has any non trivial thrid party media coverage or has historically contributed to their field (chess) in a manner worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Pumpmeup 08:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree with the nominator. This article was made via articles for creation. I reviewed it, and after much hunting for more sources, I declined it as not meeting WP:GNG. The user then asked for further help and, after discussion, I got two other experienced Wikipedians to independently double-check my assessment. They, also, did not locate any reliable sources other than chess clubs, and were similarly not able to accept the submission and make the article live. After these discussions, the user themself decided to move it to the live area. Per all assessments, and particularly with BLP caution, I do not feel this person meets the requirements of notability. Chzz ► 07:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm just not seeing it here with this article. I hate to say this, but maybe if it was better written or had more information or sources--then possibly. Kudos to the author for being bold and moving it in though... Try another wiki??--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Chzz, I also thought the article should have been declined per AfC, and if the creator did not agree, here it is at AfD. —fetch·comms 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was article has been userified per a request on the article page. Basing this on the fact that it was in theory eligible for CSD G7, so a userification shouldn't be controversial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cooked TV[edit]
- Cooked TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable homemade TV show being presented on community access (not commercial) TV. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted as a copyright violation, (and, in my opinion it was in any case a totally unencyclopedic essay) This is not in prejudice of a proper article on the subject, if a non-violating article with reliable third party source can be written DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resource-based economy[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Resource-based economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obvious self promotional spam article that has only one biased source and was likely copied from the organization's website. The creator and trademark owner of "Resource Based Economies", Jacque Fresco already has his own article as well as additional articles for his organizations The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement which are all pretty much the same thing repeated multiple times anyway. Grandthefttoaster (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was copied word for word from an essay on the organization's website. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article=1&Itemid=100091 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.79.136 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it was. Flagged as copyvio. Suggest speedy delete on that ground. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was copied word for word from an essay on the organization's website. http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kb&task=article&article=1&Itemid=100091 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.79.136 (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Reads like an essay. We're not here to be a soapbox. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's absolutely no justification for deleting this article, if it has grammatical errors, fix them. If you don't approve of the specific language used, alter it. Why not just nominate all articles for deletion if it "reads like an essay" while you're at it. I suspect whoever nominated this article for deletion simply doesn't like the ideas. Censorship at its finest. 206.125.139.238 (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay of original research, containing editorial musings about a utopian economy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - copyvio, see above. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - There are plenty of other sources to add, based on a 2-second Google search. Fresco, The Zeitgeist Movement and Resource-Based Economy are all noteworthy enough to warrant dedicated articles. I've frequently seen articles with a lot less noteworthiness than this. Autonova (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Article needs more sources and a better structure but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.194.69 (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cambodian Cultural Village[edit]
- Cambodian Cultural Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. no real third party coverage [29]. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It didn't take me long to find this source which claims that it was the center of an interntional conroversy that even involved the UN(!). Definitely seems to be a notable tourist attraction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Andrew Lenahan above. I have added this reference. Also I believe that WP:BEFORE has not been followed fully. I suggest the nominator reads this before nominating further articles. In particular, adding a {{refimprove}} and/or {{notability}} template would have been appropriate before AfD in this case. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep on the basis of 1 source? suggest that Jpbowen reads WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:SIGCOV. I've previously applied the notability tag to about 100 articles...guess what in only 1 case someone bothered to improve the article. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of sources to be found (e.g., see book references under Google books). I have added some more information and references. It is always a good idea to check for existing references and if they are there to either add them (preferably!) or if you don't have time, to add a {{refimprove}} template, as suggested above for this case. I hope this helps for the future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep: Satisfied that sources exist for this topic. hope someone can expand it. would not rule out a merge to an article about Cambodian culture or Cambodian cities. Arskwad (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what are these sources? only 1 exists so far. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jordan (singer)[edit]
- Alexis Jordan (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. I do not believe that this singer meets WP:MUSIC. Her first claim to notability is that she participated in American Idol, but she did not reach the finals which means she doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criterion 9. The second claim is that she is signed with a notable record label, but as she has not released more than one single so far, she does not meet criterion 5. As for coverage in published works (criterion 1), there are a number of Google hits about her being signed up for Roc Music, but I can't see that any of them meet WP:RS, and almost all of them have extremely similar phrasing, so are probably copies or slight rephrasings of her press releases. May be notable in future but not now. bonadea contributions talk 06:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating
- Happiness (Alexis Jordan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which is about Jordan's single. Songs or recordings by notable artists can be in themselves notable, but this is not. Very little coverage of it that I can find, and the only secondary source in the article is a rather short review on djbooth.net. --bonadea contributions talk 06:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Lacks support for notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 06:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC. simply appearing on Idol does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Fennell[edit]
- Marc Fennell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe that this article is irrelevant and redundant as per applicability criteria as the subject of the article is quite simply not notable or appropriate enough to have his own article on Wikipedia.--Topclaw (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He seems to me to meet all of the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, so I think the article should stay. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The numerous independent references and the fact that this individual has a major role on several nationally-broadcast television and radio programs belie any claims on lack of notability, as well as your "belief" of irrelevance. --Canley (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Most of the references to be found are now in the article (thanks to Bilby (talk · contribs)), but I think it would be generous to describe their coverage as significant. However, as Canley (talk · contribs) says, Fennell has a major role on a number of nationally broadcast television and radio programs, which, combined with the references, is sufficient to establish notability. This is a solidly referenced stub about someone with national television exposure, there is certainly no good reason to delete it. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Origional research. We already have Silicone rubber, so there is no real reason to keep this article as it does not really warrant a seperate topic. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advantage and limitation of silicon rubber[edit]
- Advantage and limitation of silicon rubber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very strange composition, I'm not exactly sure what it is but it shouldn't be here. Just barely escaped a speedy tag. — e. ripley\talk 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, looks like an essay or original research. JIP | Talk 05:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for all the above, and it might actually have been copy pasted, who knows. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - ditto. I would have speedied it. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete semi-nonsense, including such incomprehensible uses for rubber as "a large statue Buddha", "artificial fossils Factory", and "Europe component factory" whatever the heck that even is. The bulk of it seems to be copied from a machine-translated list used on various catalog websites, such as this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unintelligible, some kind of a combination of a WP:OR essay and an advertisement. Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dillsboro, Indiana. Mention can also be made in First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), provided that article survives its AfD Shimeru (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Dillsboro, Indiana)[edit]
- Hopewell Presbyterian Church (Dillsboro, Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable - just an ordinary church, really. I fear the creator started the article after having seen First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), but that article ought to be deleted as well. StAnselm (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and now also nominated for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable; maybe in the future. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteFails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dillsboro, Indiana. This is commonly the best solution for local churches, primary schools and other local facilities that enjoy local notability only. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana), the parent congregation (whose building is listed as an NRHP, and should not be deleted). LadyofShalott 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana). LadyofShalott 17:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The link with First Presbyterian Church (Aurora, Indiana) is explained in this article, so it would be a candidate for to be merged into, however churches etc are often mentioned in articles on settlements, so the suggestion to merge into Dillsboro, Indiana, is also a valid suggestion. The eventual outcome should probably be that the sourced material is moved into the settlement article, with a mention added to the article on First Presbyterian Church. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 23:15, 6 May 2010 Athaenara (talk | contribs) deleted "Steak Off" (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak Off as well.) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steak Off[edit]
- Steak Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Charitable event which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. No mention is made of the event in any of the supplied references which are all to primary sources or maps to locations involved with the event . Google news and web searches on the title or the title with Denver added brings up zero relevant hits. Sounds like a nice event for a good cause but it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Previously speedily deleted but recreated and expanded, bringing to AFD for wider opinion. RadioFan (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article creator is one of the event's founders.--RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wizard sticks[edit]
- Wizard sticks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another drinking game. A brief look at the history isn't turning up a properly sourced version to revert to; google isn't turning up notability in the first several pages of hits, and gnews comes up blank. Gbooks and gscholar aren't any help, either. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this drinking game. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I'll obviously be trying this this weekend, when are we going to get a CSD category for things made up in a college dorm room, or at least, drinking games made up one weekend. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete classic WP:NFT case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a made-up game. This article belongs on Facebook, not here. Joal Beal (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP The game exists, as you'd well know if you nerds ever left the house --User:l0de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.20.89 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.185.20.89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: Just because something exists doesn't automatically make it notable. Feinoha Talk, My master 17:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP all drinking games are made up. This game is amazing and the article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.242.93 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — 75.73.242.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment That is not a relevant argument. Have a look at WP:SCRABBLE. --bonadea contributions talk 12:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 YMCA (disambiguation). JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Young Men's Christian Association Building[edit]
- Young Men's Christian Association Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disambiguation page with no blue links, and no logical blue links to add. Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One, there are a lot of YMCA buildings, and two, non-editors won't view this page anyway.--T3h 1337 b0y (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Criterion G6 covers orphaned disambig pages. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No, this is a legitimate disambiguation page, among the wikipedia-notable places that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I put a "hangon" to stop the Speedy delete, i hope that is correct procedure and will stop that. I need a few minutes to clean it up to meet MOSDAB guidelines fully, MOS:DABRL in particular. Question: did i see indication that there was a previous AFD about this, with decision to Keep? Where is that AFD discussion, could someone please provide a link? I believe this should probably be SPEEDY KEEP, actually, but i would like to see the previous discussion. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles need to be created for this disambig page to be valid. Now to me any building listed on the NRHP gets a free pass at notability, so I don't think there would be any problem getting these articles kept, but until then, the disambig page is just useless. The reason I did not hesitate to tag it for speedy is that it's been sitting there with only redlinks for a year and a half. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When i created this article in September 2008 the standards were different, and tt wasn't later tagged by WikiProject NRHP on the Talk page as it should have been, so it missed my cleanup drive through 3,000 such disambiguation pages, completed recently. In particular it had not gotten the {{NRHP dab needing cleanup}} tag which would have gotten my attention. If you come across any other NRHP ones, if you can remember to let me know, please do. Thank you, whoever did contact me at my Talk page. And, no, the disambiguation is not useless: it clarifies to editors that they should not create an article for one specific place at the general name, i.e. that disambiguating phrase it needed. And for readers and editors both it now points them to the NRHP list-articles with info about these specific places, and clarifies that a) there is no separate article under any other name for either of these (allowing them to stop looking under "YMCA Building" or other alternative names possible, and b) communicates accurately that the topic is wikipedia-notable and an article can be created. --doncram (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles need to be created for this disambig page to be valid. Now to me any building listed on the NRHP gets a free pass at notability, so I don't think there would be any problem getting these articles kept, but until then, the disambig page is just useless. The reason I did not hesitate to tag it for speedy is that it's been sitting there with only redlinks for a year and a half. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, i am not surprised to find the larger stash of YMCA building disambiguation at YMCA (disambiguation), which covers places like "YMCA Building" and other variations already. This 2 item page should be merged and redirected to that. I've done other mergers of sets of disambiguation covering variations on Young Women's Christian Association, and on Elks Buildings, and so on, before. This is just one stray 2 item page that shoulda been swept into the consolidation, but wasn't. If you all will kindly close this AFD and remove the Speedy Delete and all this mess, i will implement that merger. --doncram (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomination was just wrong, it seems to me. Comment that there are no logical blue links to add is just wrong, anyhow. The well-defined procedure for considering validity of red-links on a disambiguation page is to click on the red-link, then click on "what links here". For the 2 items on this page, that leads to the NRHP list articles which define these two places, give addresses and coordinates and other context. I added those NRHP list articles now as appropriate supporting bluelinks. Also, there appears to be another one or two alternate bluelinks that could be added; the Albany one is also linked from Downtown Albany Historic District(?) or something like that. --doncram (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further question The deletion nom message cites "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance. See CSD G6." Does that reflect any official policy/guideline anywhere, or is that made up for this specific case? Because, it conflicts with Disambiguation policy about valid red-links having supporting blue-links. It has been held in fairly recent discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation that it is okay to have in the English wikipedia, as it has been okay for some time in German wikipedia, disambiguation pages that have all primary red-links as long as they each have proper supporting bluelinks. So, if this is a quote from some policy/guideline somewhere, there is a conflict that needs to be cleared up. If this is just the deletion nominator's personal view, we should discuss and clear up that, too. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [YMCA (disambiguation)].see comments below. i personally dont like the redlinks here, i find it not very useful, though of course the structures are mentioned in the blue linked articles, and apparently doncram points out this is allowed now (i accept that despite my bias). people will type "ymca building" or "young mens... building or "ymca and all should link to only one disambig for simplicity and ease of navigation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa!, let's not have this debate yet again! doncram... why debate this here... this has all been done before. Don't write anything else until you've seen this link. I am amazed nobody has brought up, especially doncram. Last I was involved, there was an uneasy truce between the disambiguation project and the NRHP project regarding exactly these kinds of edits (I had no idea that CSD tag existed actually). If that issue needs re-opened I'd suggest it's done at WP:Disambiguation rather than the project page. In the meantime, this AfD should probably be put on hold (closed with no prejudice) until the broader discussion is finished.
But whatever happens, please do not replay this debate on this AfD. It is too multifaceted for this forum and has already been done at least 2 other times that I know of. Shadowjams (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the debate here needs to be closed somehow. Mercurywoodrose above, Boleyn2 below, and i so far agree that the AFD should be closed. And no one would object to redirecting the page to the bigger, combo dab about YMCA buildings. There are other issues in the discussion on NRHP dab pages which don't need to be addressed here, yes. Anyone is welcome to join and discuss there, yes, but this current AFD does need to be finished in some way. --doncram (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with a redirect to YMCA (disambiguation).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the debate here needs to be closed somehow. Mercurywoodrose above, Boleyn2 below, and i so far agree that the AFD should be closed. And no one would object to redirecting the page to the bigger, combo dab about YMCA buildings. There are other issues in the discussion on NRHP dab pages which don't need to be addressed here, yes. Anyone is welcome to join and discuss there, yes, but this current AFD does need to be finished in some way. --doncram (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Shadowjams, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment any further debate should occur in another forum. i checked the aforementioned link to the NRHP debate. my librarianish brain is buzzing, too much to think about right now, interesting comments from many well intentioned and cogent editors. Im now absolutely ok with suspending this AFD OR keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Time to close this The deletion nominator Fabrictramp agrees that redirect is fine. I as creator/developer am fine with redirect to the larger, merged dab page for notable YMCA buildings. Everyone is fine with that. Please someone just close this now (as Keep / Redirect). I already put the entries from this dab page into the bigger one. All that is left is to redirect this one to it. --doncram (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GERMAN-PITT (dog)(german shepard pittbull[edit]
- GERMAN-PITT (dog)(german shepard pittbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Initially tagged as a speedy G3, this article no longer bears the signs of vandalism even though it essentially hasn't changed. Non-recognized dog breed, no reliable sources available, and, even if such dogs do exist, Wikipedia isn't in the business of coining names for new dog breeds. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. BTW there are about 150 dog breeds. Should we have articles on every cross? What's 150 x 149? Borock (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who removed the G3 tag, I thought that I could remove the vandalistic properties. If no sources can be found, then Delete. Hamtechperson 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Several Journeys of Reemus[edit]
- The Several Journeys of Reemus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- All I can find on Google about this game are places online where you can play it (even the references in the article point to such sites). I can't really find any coverage about it. (The article also violates WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The game series has received several annual award nominations, from The Mochi Awards at the Flash Gaming Summit, jayisgames.com and newgrounds.com. I'll add these to the article. I agree that each chapter's synopsis isn't necessary. User talk:SteveCastro —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Unless I'm mistaken, the Mochi Awards appear to be an online-only award event that doesn't pass WP:WEB. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mochi Awards are physically presented at the Flash Gaming Summit, a live conference in San Francisco, CA. [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.136.124 (talk • contribs)
- I stand corrected. However, the Flash Gaming Summit doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mochi Awards are physically presented at the Flash Gaming Summit, a live conference in San Francisco, CA. [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.136.124 (talk • contribs)
- Unless I'm mistaken, the Mochi Awards appear to be an online-only award event that doesn't pass WP:WEB. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The game was discussed during a panel at Casual Connect Seattle, a conference for casual game developers. The mention was covered by Gamasutra. This reference along with Channel4 and Joystiq reviews were added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCastro (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There are four articles on Jay is Games, a snippet on Joystiq as well as this on Gamezebo which has some use. Although I'm very happy about the Jay sources it's got to be a weak keep because there are no significant sources from anywhere else. Someoneanother 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Gin[edit]
- Super Gin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. This is unreferenced step-by-step instructions on how to fix the drink. Needs not only reliable sources but some context to justify why the drink is a topic for its own article in an encyclopedia. Xtzou (Talk) 18:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As nominator. Xtzou (Talk) 23:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible Keep add a single source and I'd vote to keep. To call this an instruction manual is to call any wiki article that mentions the ingredients a how to manual. (note: look up pepsi, is it a how to manual?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs)
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Get it on wikiHow. Delete. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources. The only evidence that this exists is a facebook page. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Mixing booze and Red Bull is not an original idea so it may be that such a drink may exist but be called something else and it may be notable under that name. This would make Super Gin an unsourced protologism and it would still need to be deleted for that reason. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Vitali[edit]
- Antonio Vitali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was tagged as a speedy. I am undecided and am listing here procedurally. This article appears reasonably well written, and while notability is doubtful, this isn't a BLP and so somewhat more inclusive standards should IMO apply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some additional standards for the nature of the sourcing that apply to BLPs, but the same notability standards apply to BLP as all articles. This one sounds likely, but either someone must describe the nature of the source being relied on, or some additional sources must be found DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - there are many possible sources online. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ernest Ridding[edit]
- Ernest Ridding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although he appears to be an interesting character, he does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Although he would meet the general criteria of being "...interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention...", I think he fails the more specific criteria, in that there is not significant published coverage of him - I don't think we can rely on just one news article or that he was included in a wider sociological exhibition. If there was an article of Sydney eccentrics or an article on the exhibition in which Ridding featured, I would propose a merge, but in the circumstances I propose that the article is deleted Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed, interesting, but that one article from the SMH is the only thing that I could find that's reliable and offers some coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposed Merge Could it be rewritten and merged into the Glebe, New South Wales notable residents section? He was a resident and contributed to the community in a notable way over a long period of time. The reference in The Sydney Morning Herald establishes that.--Savonneux (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I count 3 reliable sources which discuss him, at least fairly in depth.Borock (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See here, he ran as an Independent candidate in the 1988 NSW state election. Charity work & other biographical details are given by: State Library of New South Wales. Historical evidence also presented in photographs at same site [31], [32]. According to my reading of WP:ANYBIO #2 he's notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The strength of coverage seems to be just above the level required for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Confessional (album)[edit]
- The Confessional (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a mixtape: WP:NALBUMS not met Lionelt (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep released on Aftermath Records; "mixtape" is a bugbear word (like "blog") that disconcerts Wikipedians, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a full-length release on a noted label. Chubbles (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International Property Brokers[edit]
- International Property Brokers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable company - makes one claim to sponsoring an award but no evidence to substantiate this. Nothing in google to establish notability noq (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real showing of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Harrison[edit]
- Jeff Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be non-notable. No third-party sources, google search does not reveal any coverage in reliable sources either. Pantherskin (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I googled 'Jeff Harrison poet', nothing much came back. He's a poet, its not difficult to call yourself a poet, persuading others is the hard part. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Silliman has written about this poet.
http://ronsilliman.blogspot.com/2004/04/readers-of-this-blog-will-know-by-now.html
Andrew Gallix has mentioned him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2008/jul/01/spampoetry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazantsev (talk • contribs) 15:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew D. Hoffman, Perry R. Cook, and David M. Blei of Princeton University have mentioned Jeff Harrison's poems in their paper "Data-Driven Recomposition Using The Hierarchical Dirichlet Process Hidden Markov Model".
http://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/publications/hdphmm_icmc2008.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazantsev (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. BLP Subject lacks in-depth coverage. A few mentions of his work don't qualify him per WP:AUTHOR. Pcap ping 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The coverage provided doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. No prejudice to recreation if more coverage turns up. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. While the article is short on independent sources, there is a near unanimous consensus that (1) the subject meets WP:PROF because of the subject's academic position; (2) the position is verifiable; and (3) that is sufficient to establish notability. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iqbal Singh[edit]
- Iqbal Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP; he may be notable, but you can't prove it from these "sources"; fails WP:V. Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it is true that he is a distinguished professor at National Law Institute University, and if that university counts as a "major institution of higher education and research," then he passes WP:PROF #5. Someone knowledgeable with academia in India should weigh in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See preliminary expert commentary at User_talk:SpacemanSpiff#notable.3F. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The institute seems from our web page to be a highly important law schools, and ref.1 in the article documents that he is a distinguished professor there. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Iqbal Singh's profile appears on the NLIU homepage, also some of his other publications appear in other searches across wikipedia under 'Iqbal Singh', for instance 'Punjab under siege' Sirvivan 10 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivian2009 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It needs more sources, but he appears to meet WP:PROFESSOR. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think being distinguished professor at one of India's top three law schools should be enough, and it's easily verifiable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Struecker[edit]
- Jeff Struecker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT and does not seem to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MILPEOPLE. This seems similar to several other recent AfDs (here, here, here, and here) of individuals whose article's failed ONEEVENT for the same event. The editor who removed the prod on this article claimed the individual is notable for the three books he wrote, but they don't appear to be covered enough to get him over WP:AUTHOR. Novaseminary (talk) 05:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My limited research leads me to think that this person is notable. He was not merely involved in the Battle of Mogadishu, but he co-authored several books (only partly about that experience) that have been widely reviewed, he has been interviewed about the Battle fairly extensively (Christian Broadcasting Network, Philadelphia Inquirer, CNN), and I find that he was prominently featured in the book Black Hawk Down.[33] Yes, he first became known for that one event, but he has remained in the public eye. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be generally notable, sources look good enough. Borock (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per precedent cited (subjects who were more heavily involved in the battle have already been deleted, e.g. Eversmann, who also wrote a book and received more coverage in both the movie and other books). Policy-wise it fails WP:MILPEOPLE in my opinion and is a BLP issue. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per WP:MILPEOPLE, but his authorship may be notable if that section was expanded. Canals86966 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Author of several books that have been 3rd party reviewed. Person is notable per guidelines so keep the article. Kugao (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unbooked[edit]
- Unbooked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any evidence that this is a known business model. (Or that Expedia's business model is described anywhere as "unbooked".) Indeed, the article's author describes it in an edit summary as an "emergent business model", but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for it to emerge. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
_____________
I have created a talk page to address this, opening with:
"There is a view that this entry is to be deleted. I think that there is wide usage of this term in publishing, accounting practice and a variety of business models. While I am but one author, I would like to see this entry remain providing the opportunity for other authors to continue to expand this entry with greater context, relevance and utility to the community."
Jeffdusting 09:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: The new information that has been put in the article about the Unbook Movement has to with "book" as a printed medium, but the rest of the article has to do with "booking" as in "making reservations". It's not clear what the article is really referring to. ... discospinster talk 15:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not sure if WP:DICTIONARY, WP:SPAM, or WP:NEO fits better. Jminthorne (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incoherent. Apparently about two different subjects, neither of them with any sources or likely notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with DGG. Also non-notable neologisms, dictionary definitions, and original research musing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urban environment simulation[edit]
- Urban environment simulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to be an article as such, but rather a thesis/essay/synthesis of reference material. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Unreadable text apparently about traffic simulation studies. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EleMints[edit]
- EleMints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability; only contributor is the actual developer. No reliable refs, either. moɳo 01:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [34], [35], [36], [37] Doing a Google search came up with a few app reviews as well as a Businessweek article. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rod Espinosa. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neotopia[edit]
- Neotopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this comic series. Joe Chill (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Just a quick search for sources, are these acceptable?: - here, here and here. If anything though I might suggest a merge to the authors page Rod Espinosa, due to the somewhat trivial mentions of this comic in the sources. Problem is, that page is also up for deletion nomination... Jwoodger (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above, since the author's page is definitely being kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong Welsh Male Voice Choir[edit]
- Hong Kong Welsh Male Voice Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this choir. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only coverage in Google News is trivial. No other evidence of in-depth reliable sources on the topic. cab (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They Walk in the Night[edit]
- They Walk in the Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. — e. ripley\talk 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This collection of stories seems to be mentioned quite a bit in this Google book search. At the very least, this should be a merge to Eric Rosenthal (historian and author). -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.