Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wilmy Caceres
Non-notable retired minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 01:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources, no major league experience. *yawn*Ravenmasterq 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability in article, first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Never played in major leagues.--Fabrictramp 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dmirkin 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cesar Bernhardt
Non-notable retired minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 23:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources? No Major League experience? It's way back...and it's gone!Ravenmasterq 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit] List of places along the Greensand Way
The result was delete. --DarkFalls talk 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT Indiscriminate information and WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. There are 129 footpaths in Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom alone, are we going to have a List of places along every single one? How about places along every major road in the world? And places along rivers? Saikokira 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The places are sufficiently covered in the content and external links at Greensand Way. --Bduke 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete List of loosely associated items 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- No opinion however, if the list article is deleted, then I'll add the places back into the Greensand Way article from where they were originally removed. -- SGBailey 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back to the main article -- Whpq 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep—users have shown that notability exists. — Deckiller 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PhpWebSite
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N ans WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Several similar articles will shortly be nominated, but rather than all-at-once, which tends to get us nowhere, they'll be separate, so whether you're feelings are the same or different on each, please note that so that the closing admin can figure out consensus more easily. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - this coverage gives it notability Corpx 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per reliable source coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] JulesH 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pivotlog
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up the article. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nn. KTC 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. On a side note, which policy says that PROD should not be used on an article with many editors ? I couldn't find it. I notice that the last batch of CMS software I proded were deleted by User:Riana, regardless of whether or not they were old I think. Are you sure policy states that PROD can only be used on new articles or with few contributions, I thought that would only have been for speedy deletion tags that it was the case ? I was thinking that if there were many editors, then there would be many people ready to contest the PROD. Thank you though for forcing people to discuss the article, because it does seem a bit strange when I PROD an article and nobody has any opinion of it on the article talk page. Jackaranga 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep --DarkFalls talk 06:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PmWiki
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per coverage. While most are trivial, there are some that qualify as "significant" Corpx 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep First of all, kudos to Carlossuarez46 for bringing this up on AfD. – PmWiki is quite comparable to MoinMoin which is currently the selected article on Portal:Free software. Google counts are similar for both (more so if you add "wiki" as a second keyword because "MoinMoin" is a German greeting). PmWiki is half a decade old and still under active development. It is widely deployed (obviously, these are self-reported and don't count in-house use). – That said, the article does need work. Rl 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. PmWiki is one of the most popular wiki servers in use today. Reliable source coverage [5] [6] [7] [8] etc... JulesH 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep PmWiki is a notable piece of software that is used on many websites. — Wenli (contribs) 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus (keep) — some notability has been shown (though not as much as some of the others out of this batch); the AfD is split enough to warrant a no consensus. — Deckiller 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SiteFrame
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I was not around to actually see the prod being inserted in my watchlist. Now I see it go on VFD. Well, I've added a few more secondary sources to backup the article. I believe that it should be kept. It is at least included as a script (albeit an old version) in Fantastico, which is a notable. --Jacques Pirat Talk 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. One of the fundamental points about notability is that it is not inherited. Jackaranga 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UNITED-NUKE
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V, which about sums up what the article is.Carlossuarez46 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Website Baker
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The article fails WP:WEB, since I can't find any independent non-trivial reliable sources on the Internet (just its official website and countless download pages). The live demo link the article provides is not functioning as well, so this software is not notable.--Kylohk 00:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of most popular electronic components
WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. Whatever the intended purpose of this list (a type of online catalog list, according to the talk page), this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Saikokira 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty subjective list, Can't wp:v on "most popular", :NOT applies as well. Pharmboy 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename As the inclusion criterion of "Most popular" is too vague, the list should not have been created. Otherwise, it should somehow be converted into a list of the most widely used cmoponents, with reliable sources backing their adoption, etc.--Kylohk 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Is this list compiled by purely WP:OR ? Corpx 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Like Corpx, I'm seeing OR. --Moonriddengirl 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Mandsford 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It would have made some sense if if provided context information but the current text is just bunch of product names. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Twin Air
Fails WP:CORP, can find nothing that lends this small general aviation company any degree of notability. Russavia 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete no notability. Only found trivial mentions about this company Corpx 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Corpx. General aviation as a topic is notable, but individual charters are not; notability is not inherited. Bearian 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bridges Community Academy
expired uncontested prod (notability), but it's been around over a year and is school related so may be controversial, so taken to afd. I agree with the prod-er that it fails WP:N, and if this is the state it's in 20 months on, is it going to get any better? Carlossuarez46 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep What is supposed to be the problem? It's notable of course. LukeHoC 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete small school with no "significant coverage" from independent sources. I cant pull up the first link as the site is down, but even then it require more sources to establish notability Corpx 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Been here long ebough to expand but really hasn't been with all those edits. It comes across like an ad to me.--Amadscientist 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability requires that "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - at this point it doesn't look like this article meets that standard. -- MarcoTolo 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Take Flight Charters
Fails WP:CORP, can find nothing which would lend this small general aviation company any degree of notability. Russavia 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability; nothing readily available. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete per above and other such general aviation afd's, they are not generally notable. However, this one is marginally notable - it has charters to Cuba, and I have heard of it. Bearian 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flight Schedule Cibao Intl
Goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Speedy delete poss? Russavia 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This article has been speedied twice in June and has had the nameplace locked to prevent recreation, originally at Cibao Airport Flight Schedule --Russavia 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, i whant to know what is the problem with this article, what bad thing it have and what can i do to become this article in an apropiate article for wikipedia??? Just because i haven´t seen any other article that shows the Cibao Airport Flight Activity and i realy whant to let people to know what is going on in this airport...
Could you help me??? Migssant19 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as with such schedules generally. Not encyclopedic in any sense. DGG (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
This article has encyclopedic sense, tell me why you say that it doesn´t have any? i keep without understand why is it bad??
It doesn´t matter that it was deleted in may, look at the article, what are the differents, yess, that the old one just have a box info, this one have the box info and some things that have importance in thia airport, you don´t think so???
I whant to know too how can i save it, or change it to an ``encyclopedic sense´´ if it realy doesn´t have any. i realy don´t whant you to delete this article, it was hurt for me to add it. Migssant19 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There's no notability established for flight schedule of this airport Corpx 05:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Honestly, this type of information would be better suited to the company's website, where it can be maintained by them, so that people do not rely on inaccurate schedules. Abeg92contribs 14:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is not what Wikipedia was intended for. Wikipedia may not be paper but it's still an encyclopedia. Most of this info changes so often that the schedule is bound to be incorrect unless someone is carefully checking it periodically which, let's face it, will not happen and this belongs on the airport's website. Pascal.Tesson 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Ok delete that sht. You´re right guys this is responsability of the Cibao International Airport Corportation in its website. But you think guys that the other part (Notes) of this article may be in Cibao Intl article or can stay in this article with another name??
Migssant19 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing in here to merge, it's all about this airport's scheduling information. This doesn't belong here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of Canterbury Commerce Society (UCom)
No assertion of notability. Nothing links to it. Bduke 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree with nom, almost a speedy. - SimonLyall 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.-gadfium 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, two non-wikipedia results from google [11]. With a lack of any other evidence supplied for keeping, means I support deletion. Mathmo Talk 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete student societies are not notable. Timrollpickering 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete Reluctant to say delete on such a short stub after less than a month of life, but no case for note/WP:ORG, and zero available sources to build from on Google News. If there's anywhere else to look, I'd happily switch to keep if strong secondary sources providing a basis for a case under WP:ORG were made available. MrZaiustalk 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Usherette Trixie
This article is the only remaining character article existing on characters from "The Rocky Horror Show". It is a non-notable character and in fact may not be a character at all. No references are cited or can be found to substantiate the claims made on the page. Amadscientist 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable enough to keep. Not sourced or referenced. Information can be added to "The Rocky Horror Show"--Amadscientist 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per Amadscientist. --Moonriddengirl 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - the character certainly exists. "Unsourced" doesn't mean "unsourcable" and as the only character from the stage show not to carry over to the film Trixie has some encyclopedic significance. In the alternative, merge this and other character articles into a List of Rocky Horror characters. Otto4711 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - No, the character really does not exist. Usherette is merely the character of Magenta in another costume. None of the scripts name the usherette. References that do mention this state clearly that only the costume or prop carried by the actress has given a name to any particular production. In the original London production they "called" her "Miss Strawberry time" because of the markings on the tray that was carried. In the Roxie production they called her Trixie due to the name placed on the costume.( Neither was in any official capacity.) However to call it a character is simply incorrect and not factual as the script does not give it a name and most importantly there is no credit for the character. Wish all you want but Usherette Trixie is not an actual character. Also there simply are no other characters with articles other than Brad and Janet and they face deletion as well. All other character articles have long been deleted and redirected.--Amadscientist 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry, but it is simply not accurate to claim that an actor in a different costume is not playing different parts. For instance, the original Belasco Theatre production and the production that debuted November 2000 list the usherettes as separate characters. Otto4711 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for showing that, however I don't know that that proves anything as both credtis are different. The 1975 prodoction is the same cast from the Roxie. The costume gave her the name and It was not credited there. The 2000 production does not give the Usherete a name again. It is Magenta in another costume and even Patricia Quinn qestioned whether or not it was a seperate character and she created Magenta. It is not accurate to start a page for "Usherette Trixie" when it was only credited in a single production of literally hundreds of proffessional productions. You would also need a page for Miss Strawberry time and for just Usherete.
-
- If there are reliable sources that discuss the character, the name issue, Quinn's confusion, etc. then what else do you think is needed for an encyclopedia article? Move it to Usherette (Rocky Horror) if having "Trixie" in the title bothers you. The deletion of the articles for other characters has no bearing on this article. Otto4711 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Josh Armstrong and Joshua Armstrong
2 Google hits for '"joshua armstrong" "passion food"', One hit for '"josh armstrong" "passion food"'. Fails WP:BIO. Corvus cornix 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO. --Muchness 23:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom;Deserved a speedy. Why did you take the slow route?Kww 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - if there's an assertion of notability, however tenuous, the article should be prodded or listed at AFD. --Muchness 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. A leader in gourmet catering and culinary management consulting is a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it couldn't die under db-bio, but I wouldn't hesitate to flag it db-spam. Kww 02:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. A leader in gourmet catering and culinary management consulting is a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - if there's an assertion of notability, however tenuous, the article should be prodded or listed at AFD. --Muchness 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Did you notice the name is misspelled in the article? Bearian 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D
expired prod left by author but objected to, so I'll call it a contested prod. Prod based on "NN book by NN author. xlibris.com is a self-publishing house", with which I agree, per WP:BK and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I placed that prod. The article is the exposition of the content of the book at great length. The sources for notability are blurbs on the cover, which are not reviews, and do not count as notability for anything. DGG (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Might have used as a wikilink for suntanning if I had known it existed. That would end the 'dead end' issue. Not sure how to apply policy in this case, so not taking a stand on del/kep. Sounds like an interesting read tho. Pharmboy 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The sources for notability are the references contained in the bibliography of the book.--Jamesonjon 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - there's no evidence the book is notable. The blurb on the book cover is under the control of the author, so we still don't have any independent verification that any reliable source considers the book notable. (Note: if kept, should be renamed to the title of the book.) --Alvestrand 13:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I noticed a few other cites referencing the book per wikipedia. Again, not sure this would meet notability issue. Can't find the obvious hits for notability for the book. Pharmboy 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean that other sites are pointing to Wikipedia's book description, or something else? I can't quite figure out the sentence - but if so, this might be a reason for someone to place the Wikipedia article in the first place: to give the impression of an authoritative place with information about the book. --Alvestrand 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Other sites using Wikipedia's article verbatim, which isn't a particularly strong case. Pharmboy 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Author didn't want to include "prostate cancer" in the title of the article, which is the main reason one might be interested in reading about this. The book author had a reason for putting that in the title. This might merit a mention in another article about prostate cancer or Vitamin D, but no merge necessary somewhere. Mandsford 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it doesn't look like as an encyclopedic article to me. It fits more to a popular science magazine. -- Magioladitis 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. NN, book by a vanity press, can not be sourced. Bearian 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable book, per Amazon.co.uk ranking of 1,788,143 [12] & Amazon.com ranking of #2,187,098 [13] and no evidence of independent high-quality reviews, awards etc. Espresso Addict 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Charter Flights Caribbean
Fails WP:CORP, unable to find anything which establishes notability of this small general aviation company. Russavia 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Spam sorry to say Shoessss | Chat 23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable commercial company. --Moonriddengirl 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Buildings breeding
Non-notable band exists more on the internet than anywhere else. Someone removed the speedy delete tag, said they could make a case for notability. This is their chance. Speciate 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete--that is: delete unless somebody has more luck finding notability on this band that I have. The page claims that "the band’s album debuted at #6 on the charts for CMJ (College Music Journal) and stayed in the top 100 for nearly two months." I tried a search on CMJ but it said "No review, news or feature matches for Buildings breeding." I don't see an option for searching historical charts. --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. They're signed to Mushpot Records, which isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry (as I type this). They only have one album out. They have played Northern California and SXSW. They do have an entry at artistdirect.com, but not at allmusic.com. Not quite up to WP:BAND yet. Corvus cornix 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Scream (Slipknot song)
Album cut by Slipknot which doesn't seem to have any special reason for notability other than the fact that it was a hidden track. No single release, music video or chart action here, and this info can easily be placed into the album article. Infobox is also incorrect (studio album template used). - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into album article or band website and Delete. Though the song section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) is only a guideline and not official policy, it seems to fail on all counts. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete - notability is not inherited, and no separate notability is demonstrated for this song. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination as this song is not individually notable. Burntsauce 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not notable, unsourced. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opium of the People (song)
Album track by Slipknot. No single release, video or chart activity, and the article really doesn't say anything. THe infobox is also incorrect here (studio album infobox used) - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Though the song section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) is only a guideline and not official policy, it seems to fail on all counts. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete - notability is not inherited, and no separate notability is demonstrated for this song. Also, article is unsourced. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree completely with Ericorbit. Its pointless to have an article for it.--James599 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pulse detonation wave engine
expired uncontested prod whose deletion may yet be controversial; prod-er cited WP:V and rumors, with which I agree, but anything associated with Area 51 seems to have its adherents or supporters and lest I be accused of being a little green man, I'll let the community decide, but I'd say delete. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources discuss this. Research is being done on a different propulsion system with the same name, although it's possible that that's just what they want us to think... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as prodder; article only cites "rumours" which falls somewhat short of WP:V. Sandstein 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Sigh. Can we please stop with the government cover-up agenda for just a few minutes?--WaltCip 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete: Pulse detonation engine seems to be real and sourced, while this article seems to be unsourced and fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NUTBAR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete—list of in-universe concepts that shows no real-world importance. Some of this information could be merged into other articles, so the list will be userfied. If and when the information is merged, the article will be restored as a redirect to Star Destroyer. — Deckiller 14:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of Star Destroyers
expired uncontested prod, but these fiction articles tend toward the controversial so afd not prod is the way to go: the prod was based on "No assertion of real-world notability; article is entirely a jumble of trivia-laden in-universe plot summary" with which I don't disagree; also WP:FICT applies that this should be merged into whatever fictoverse it seeped out of. Carlossuarez46 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Star Destroyer. Nyttend 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete article and oppose merge to Star Destroyer. None of the content in this List of... asserts real-world impact or notability. Star Destroyer has recently been cleared of lots of in-universe trivia such as random ship names; plopping this list's information would be a large step in the wrong direction. Full disclosure: I did the initial prod on this list, and have done most of the weed-whacking at Star Destroyer. --EEMeltonIV 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete completely in universe content with no real world coverage. Corpx 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested by Nyttend. I respect that Star Wars has a mass following, but no reason that this list (drawn mainly from novels, not the films) needs to exist on its own. Mandsford 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopedic.--Amadscientist 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there any reason not to transwiki this to Wookieepedia? Why destroy the good-faith effort of several Star Wars fans if it can be just as easily moved to a more appropriate GFDL-licensed wiki? DHowell 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Maybe send to Wookieepedia.It does not belong here. None of the content in this list asserts real-world impact or notability. -- SECisek 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Martin Holmgren
Non-notable judging from the content. Likely created by himself.
- Userfy - Magnus Holmgren 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Seems to fail Wikipedia:notability (music). --Moonriddengirl 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Likely a vanity article. LuciferMorgan 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a vanity autobiography, only contribution by the creator. I userfied the content. Bearian 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. Kurykh 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gulabo and other Pakistani films
- Gulabo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Jhoomar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Ishq Badshah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Sohni Kurri Chann Wargi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
expired uncontested prod but possibly a controversial delete, as sources not likely to be found in English and notable stars if sourcing proves out the claim, but mindful of WP:CRYSTAL, it should still be a delete Carlossuarez46 22:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Added two others to this nomination. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Added another to this nom. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all I looked at all four articles, and Carlos has properly nominated these as a group. They all essentially say that "______ is a Pakistani film. It stars __________". While I'm sure that there are some great Pakistani films, the article gives us no clue about whether Gulabo is another "Gone With the Wind" or another "Godzilla 1985". Mandsford 17:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Only so much you can say about something you can't find references on.--Amadscientist 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Flight Charters
Fails WP:CORP miserably. This 'airline' owns no aircraft, it is simply a go between between customer and the aircraft owner - millions of those. Searches reveal nothing which establishes the notability of this non-airline. Also nominate under WP:SPAM, the article creator is clearly listed in the infobox. Should be speedy delete, but my csd was removed. Russavia 22:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not a single secondary source. I agree, it's borderline spam and there's an apparent WP:COI issue as well. I looked for sources on my own, but could find none. Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy - G11; spammy, and far from WP:CORP. — Coren (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Reads promotionally. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- not speedy --it clearly isnt obvious to all of us--I removed the speedy once and it should not have been put back. I think it's a weak keep, if sources can be found, and the point of an afd is to discuss the matter and let them be found. as an apparently notable company -- that it is a consolidator rather than an actual operator does not necessarily make it non-notable. DGG (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Don't you think that as the nominator that I checked for reliable, non-trival sources which would have given this company some degree of notability before putting it up for Afd? --Russavia 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Additionally, it fits in with WP:CSD as being blatant advertising. I would also point you to this article [14] which is also up for nomination again, and which was marked speedy, and had that removed by yourself, even though I mentioned in the Afd that this page [15] has been protected to prevent creation afer the creator created once again after being deleted. Why is it that others can see this yet you can't? --Russavia 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. It gets a lotta Ghits - over 600- [16], but only one real review by a San Diego business journal in the top few dozens. Marginal notability. Bearian 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nifong Party
Non-notable term. No assertion of notability. Internet search reveals no reliable sources Chunky Rice 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Seems to be racist as well. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - I found this [17] editorial, but no other references to the term. Appears to be a POV pushing article at this point, unless the terminology gains more widespread coverage/usage. Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; hoaxy goodness, and point pushing. — Coren (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Bigdaddy1981 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for notability, and general hate-filled point making. Pharmboy 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for aggressive attack. I'd previously flagged one of her articles for the same thing, Race Bait Party, to refer to the democrat party. Seems like the user's motive is to push a POV, and this should go the way of the other and be deleted. Benea 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete POV, unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Suggest adding race baiting to this deletion - wikipedia isn't a dictionary and that's all that this article is fit for. Bigdaddy1981 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- While I wouldn't object to its deletion, the issues are dissimilar enough that I don't think a joint nomination would make sense. Plus, this one is already underway. -Chunky Rice 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose you are right, perhaps i'll prod that one when I've a minute. Bigdaddy1981 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Tellingly, the article says it is a term for the Democrat Party, rather than the Democratic Party (an incorrect construction that Republicans use deliberately because they think it annoys Democrats). --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jump Naruto Stars
Article is about an unreleased video game, I believe it fails to establish notability. I {{prod}}'d it and the user removed it. I was initially tempted to mark it speedy, but want to give the editor a chance to establish its notability. Seems doubtful. Douglasmtaylor T/C 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; borderline spam for a non-notable future game. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. — Coren (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable fangame. When stuff like this gets coverage in reputable, fact-checked magazines and websites, then it'll warrant an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep but I will stubify the article since all of it is completely unsourced. Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Etienne Saqr
Expired uncontested prod, but likely to be controversial deletion on prod basis alone, so I'm bringing it here. There are lots of claims and little support for them, so WP:BLP issues as well. Carlossuarez46 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; if the unsupported claims are edited out, what's left with a stub with no claim of notability. — Coren (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: This person is notable by virtue of having been a prominent politician and warlord during the Lebanese Civil War. He is very much more prominent than many British and American legislators who have biographies on Wikipedia. I do think we should improve the article with source material, however. David Cannon 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A Lebanese warlord, not as powerful as some others, but notable enough. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per GroggyDice and DavidCannon. Bearian 00:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] TribalCMS
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFY, WP:SPAM, only third party reference given is unrelated to the software (fake notability link). Jackaranga 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The wikibooks link is fake also, there are no wikibooks related to the page. Jackaranga 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - G11; spam with fake links to establish notability. — Coren (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per norm. KTC 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the WIKIBOOKS link, that was meant to be just to CMS but I removed it altogether. I do not know where this idea of unrelated link comes from. Go to goodmanjones.com and SEE POWERED BY TRIBALCMS. grrr. This is not spam.......—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkesalex (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ormand himself may be notable, and it may make sense to discuss the cup in an article about the doctor. Without reliable sources we can't do much. If anyone has issues with similar cups having other articles with little sourcing, I suggest you either try to source them or AfD them. They are not what is being discussed here. To be very clear since this discussion seems to involve some people not as familiar with wikipedia policies. If there are reliable sources about the Ormand Cup we will be happy to have an article, but we can't write an article that doesn't have them. JoshuaZ 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ormand Cup
Non-notable sporting event for local sailing club. Exactly six Google hits: two for this article, two others from the organization's website. Tries to link notability to the namesake of the cup, "who was a friend of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alfred E. Smith", according to the article. Realkyhick 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not established, and there don't seem to be any sources available to do so. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Interestingly enough I found 11 google hits, not including hits that apply to subdivisions of the same website (Which would bring the total to 25). However, arguing that something is not notable just because it does not have many google hits is not much better than arguing that something is not notable because it does not appear in wikipedia. I also feel that Randall O should be given the chance to improve the article. After all, I have noted articles which are less notable than this one, yet which have been been kept, seemingly because they are well organised and presented. Moreover, I have noticed that Randall O has contributed significantly to wikipedia (Especially with regards to articles on the British aristocracy) and I therefore think it would be counterproductive to scare him off; after all, what harm does it really do if wikipedia contains articles that cover topics that are not overly famous? Wouldn't it be more productive to direct our resources to improving the quality of wikipedia articles, and countering genuine problems such as patent nonsense and vandalism?
And Zeibura, why are you using google news to attempt prove your point; just because something isn't newsworthy, hardly makes it unimportant. Otherwise most of history would be of no value.
Matisia 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Might i add something here, the site on Almeda Calfornia is not complete and i,am sure someone will add to it and to Dr. Charles Ormand for whom the cup is named. WiKi needs more on boating and yachting, which it lacks. The Lord Stanley Cup is widely known, but yatching cups and awards are lacking on WiKi. why remove boating and yachting awards and cups. After all yachting is an olympic event. Also President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a yachtsman and was a close friend of his. Randall O 08:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O I vote to keep it myself.
- Comment: It seems were are drifting off somewhat to whether or not Dr. Ormand is notable. That is not the issue here. It is whether or not the award given to the winner of a local (apparently) competition is notable, which I argue it isn't. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, as has been stated in AfD discussions many, many times. I don't dispute that the original author has made contributions in the past. I also think that Dr. Ormand may be notable enough for his own article, if proper sources can be found. BTW, comparing a local yachting award to the Stanley Cup is a bit much. Realkyhick 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The issue is, there are other articles on Wiki such as the One Ton Cup and the Monsoon Cup which are included and might i add, with just as little information. Several New Zealand boating and yachting associations are listed on Wiki. This being the case, why are the associations in the San Francisco Bay area being excluded from Wikipedia? There are only a few in the bay area. But one of the yachts in the bay area will try for the America's Cup. Also might i add the San Francisco Bay area, is the home of several million people. I have made contact with the commodore of the Islander 36 Association for pictures and more information. Also Wikipedia does not have one yacht club or association in the San Francisco Bay area. Does this mean they wish to exclude the whole bay area? Wikipedia also has few or any lists of cups or awards for yachting and boating.
- Keep Randall O 08:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O
- Comment: I have to agree with Randall O here that although San Francisco Bay is 'local' in the sense that it is only a relatively small area geographically, it is certainly not deficient in terms of population; this is not a cup awarded to some village sports team!
- Matisia 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- How do we know it's not just a local trophy? There are no independent sources to indicate either way. There's no conspiracy to exclude San Fransisco anything — I would hold the same opinion if the locale was San Diego or Newport or Perth. As for the other cups given as examples (ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a moment), the One Ton Cup is awarded for a world championship for a class, thus clearly notable; the Monsoon Cup was intiated by a head of state and is part of a widely recognized international tour, also clearly notable. If you can show sources which prove that the Ormand Cup rises to the same level of prestige and notability as either of these two, I will gladly reconsider. Realkyhick 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete - there are no reliable sources found. A notable trophy would likely have generated news coverage in at least the local papers but none are found in Google News. Searching the web doesn't seem to turn up any reliable sources either. -- Whpq 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As the Islander 36 Association governers all Class 1-36 yachts in the San Francisco Bay area regardless of the sponsoring groups or associations. Under the One Design-Class Associations ODCA Randall O 08:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O
- Week Delete Does not appear notable. Harlowraman 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete article desperately using possibly notable subject (i.e. Charles Ormand) as a COATRACK-like tool to justify its presence on Wiki... --Aarktica 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Air Pink
A small charter outfit in Serbia, with 2 small bizjets and a small prop. Fails WP:CORP, can't find anything in English or Serbian which would assert why this small operator is notable over the 10s of thousands other small aircraft operators, aside from being owned by a TV corporation (which doesn't afford it automatic notability) Russavia 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete.--Amadscientist 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Unlikely to find any reliable sources. Bearian 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great Hawaii Vacations
Fails WP:CORP. Can't find anything which makes this company notable over the thousands of other travel agents selling Hawaii. Appears to have been started as a spam article, cleaned up, but still does not assert its notability. Russavia 21:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete or inshrine just might be the most boring article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, save it quickly, please. KP Botany 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for advert from non notable company. Pharmboy 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are thousands of articles of small companies in Wikipedia. I cleaned it up, and additional sources can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and as they are found, they are deleted via afd for WP:N policy. This is just one more in the long list. "There are more like it" is NOT a valid reason to keep an article (per policy). Pharmboy 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What source? I don't see any references or sources listed, other than their own advertisement, their website. What clean-up? It still looks utterly dreadful. Anyone who uses this travel agency AND reads other Wikipedia articles will see it for what it clearly is: a desperate and poorly done attempt at free advertising. It's embarrassing. KP Botany 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and as they are found, they are deleted via afd for WP:N policy. This is just one more in the long list. "There are more like it" is NOT a valid reason to keep an article (per policy). Pharmboy 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - My god there are a lot of ad articles. We really must put our foot down on this sort of thing. Dump it!--Amadscientist 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:CORP -- Whpq 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, contra Jossi's argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearian 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lea Martini
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Amadscientist 05:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, no point in keeping this open. Consensus and WP:SPORTS have both proven that anyone who's played even one game in the majors is notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eddie Bockman
This is another former baseball player who did nothing in his career. It appears that the user creating these articles is doing so to add players to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates players. Eggy49er 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Do you have some vendetta against Pittsburgh Pirates players (or New York Yankees players)? This fellow played in Major League Baseball, and his biography is nicely referenced. I don't see what the problem is. Shalom Hello 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Shalom and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see a problem with the bio. Bockman was part of a key trade in major league baseball, a multisport star, a minor league manager, a major league player who was a member of three teams, and a California athlete whose career was covered closely in high school, the minors, and majors by the Los Angeles Times.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Liberty Implements
I looked on google, and I wasn't able to find a lot of references to this organization. I believe that it fails all the provisions of WP:CORP. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's a small company (46 employees), not known outside its narrow field. Shalom Hello 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly an ad.--Amadscientist 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above and as spam. See the name of the creating editor is a conflict of interest. Bearian 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons --Greatest hits 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. All major league players are notable per WP:SPORTS, so let's not waste time. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Erv Brame
He isn't a notable player at all. His record was 52-37. He won zero awards. He wasn't a on a title contender and he did nothing notable. Eggy49er 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Pleanty of reliable sources out there, according to a quick Google search. Place on {{cleanup}}. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not doubting that he exists, but he isn't notable. He did nothing in his career.Eggy49er 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think so-[18]. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2001 Eastern North America heat wave
Strong Delete. Non-noteable event. The article read like a story. There are no references or other links provided and I have not found one myself while surfing over the internet for the past 10 minutes. Even if we could find sources-there are many heatwaves across the world every week, just because it happened in America does not make it noteable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just because there's not a lot of articles on non-U.S. heat waves is no reason to not make articles for U.S. heatwaves. It's a reason to make articles for non-U.S. heat waves. bob rulz 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable, no citations. Anastrophe 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep Very notable and lenghty heat wave that occured across the area. Although article can use some expansion and sources too. I've also alerted Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology about the afd--JForget 23:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Notable event. It does need sourcing, though. Not being sourced is no reason to delete something; it's a reason to find sources for it. bob rulz 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per JForget, bobrulz, and Norton. Of course it was notable, although the August 2003 heatwave was worse in terms of body count and the blackout, if I recall. Bearian 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - There are now sufficient references, and it is evidently a notable event that has received attention from reliable sources. — xDanielxTalk 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sam Townend
British parliamentary candidate for next election. No sources, Google and Google News show little relevant to him except his own and party websites. In my understanding of past consensus, candidates are not inherently notable, making him fail WP:BIO. Was prodded for these reasons, prod removed by anon without improvement but with a claim that candidates are inherently notable. Huon 19:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Candidates are not inherently notable. Also, for a candidate there is particular concern for WP:COI, especially because Sunderland chick (talk · contribs) has no edits outside this article. Shalom Hello 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete My reading of WP:BIO is that Members of Parliament are inherently notable but candidates are not. That seems reasonable otherwise we would have thousands of articles about parliamentary candidates, very few of who go on to be known outside the locality where they stood or are going to stand for office. There are exceptions of course (e.g. Screaming Lord Sutch who filled many newspaper columns!) but these are few and far between. Sam Townend seems to be just another unremarkable parliamentary candidate, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - if he wins, then recreate. Bigdaddy1981 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Above comments about Sam Townend's entry would seem fair except for the fact that Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative candidate for the same seat has an entry. If Sam's article should be deleted, then so should that of his main opponent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpchambe (talk • contribs) 08:47, August 7, 2007 (UTC).
- Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'll have a look at Charlotte Leslie's article and take appropriate steps. --Huon 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ramsus Palantiri
Poorly written article on a contemporary wrestler. No references. Only 250 Google hits. Not notable. Shalom Hello 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. Nikki311 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No categorys. No wikification. No verification. No notable promotions. No links to other pages. No NPOV. No need for this to be here. --SteelersFan UK06 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete oh lord talk about NOT being notable or verifiable nor having a snowballs chance in hell of being either. Just get rid of it MPJ-DK 07:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nn-bio. JPG-GR 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My left nutmeg
Non-notable. Delete, or perhaps use as an external link in politics of Connecticut when that article is written. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This is just a blog which is not covered by major news organisations. The WP:SPA which created the article has no edits since August 2006, so perhaps the article itself was just self-promotion. MKoltnow 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not notable at all. Just promotion.--Amadscientist 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as it was influential in last year's election (Lamont v. Lieberman), and quoted extensively in DailyKos and the blogosphere. Dig a bit deeper, and reliable sources can be found. Bearian 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the nomination, absolutely not notable. Burntsauce 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Playable Characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl
This information already exists at Super Smash Bros. (series)#Playable_characters. Oli Filth 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Me5000 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect, if it's already covered there; it seems like a plausible title for someone to type in. Nyttend 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems unlikely that someone type that long title in. They'd probably type "Super Smash Bros Brawl" instead. Either way, this information is already covered. Useight 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect; as an article, it cannot possibly remain within guidelines, but redirects are free. — Coren (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Implausible title and WP:NOT a game guide. Burntsauce 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per Nyttend. Mathmo Talk 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] M Dilla Records
Non-notable record label. In their own words "The label has yet to successfully distribute an album." Lugnuts 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the label does not satisfy notability per Lugnut's comments; no real references, issues with POV. May be good enough for an article later, but certainly not at this time. Zidel333 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm a music inclusionist, but this is just hopeless. Maybe someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. Hasn't even distributed an album yet, hopelessly fails WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete as spam, and maybe even for no assertion of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drive Carefully Records
Non notable record label. Admits that they've only had 2 releases, one being a sampler CD. Lugnuts 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, perhaps with more releases can be reconsidered. Zidel333 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete absolutely unsourced and spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Domination Recordings
Non notable record label. Reads like an advert/spam. Lugnuts 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No indication of notability and no independent sources. Deli nk 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Zidel333 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete as spam per Lugnuts! Precious lugnuts!. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Poorly written advertisement Saget53 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Containment theory records
Non-notable record label. Advert/spam, only source is from MySpace. Lugnuts 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be non-notable Deli nk 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- speedy delete as spam per Lugnuts! Precious lugnuts! How did you find all these to delete, btw? Did you find a useful search string? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply In part of my cleanup of all the record labels, I sometimes browse Category:Category needed and then the most recent full month - IE Category:Uncategorized from July 2007. I then just do a text search for the word "record" in the article titles in that category. There's usually a fair few in each month. A handful are good articles that just need a bit of a cleanup, but the vast majority are in the advert/spam bracket, and I AFD them. Or maybe I should use my What-If machine... Lugnuts 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep JoshuaZ 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ATutor
Nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. User:Varezzi
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep: This article topic is a core element at the intersection of Category:Virtual learning environments and Category:Free software culture and documents. It represents a critical point of reference for anyone researching the very controversial and well-known e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc. Proposing deletion on this article under WP:N seems entirely inappropriate, especially considering that the Wikimedia foundation itself so prominently relies on Open Source and non-restrictive modalities of knowledge distribution and learning.
If this article gets deleted under WP:N, while all the other stuff at Category:Flash games (for example) remains, it will be an absolute slap in the face to the credibility of this project. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Despite the WP:USEFUL argument, I say Delete because I see nothing proving the notability of this software. If it's so widely used, it should be able to have plenty of sources. Nyttend 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: The bit about WP:USEFUL doesn't seem to even apply here. Perhaps you can clarify. Additionally, your (unsubstantiated) implication of "not widely used" seems to disregard that a software title can be notable regardless of whether it is used at all.[1]
-
- How can that be? Simple:
- * It has encyclopedic and historical relevance outside the scope of its direct use;
- * It features prominently in a dispute over the practices, methods, legalities and patterns of ownership in a major industry or segment of society; or
- * It relates to matters that cannot be readily observed or researched by reference to an ancillary article on the same or similar subject.
-
- The issues of Open Source software, Intellectual property, Competition in I.T. and the History of virtual learning environments all bear a strong relationship to this article topic. All of these issues are encyclopedic. None of these issues critically depend on WP:USEFUL, or how "widely used" the software package happens to be. dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The first couple pages of results are all from the ATutor domain name, and past that you're surrounded by self-promotional literature. The Carnegie Mellon link would qualify as WP:RS and WP:V, but it's a self-submitted nomination for a grant, not an award or CM-sponsored thing. It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it. Your comparison to Napster is disingenuous. Napster was used by millions of people, sparked dozens of clones, and fundamentally altered the way music is marketed or sold or what have you. Oh yeah, and it is still used, even if the program isn't identical to the one that was developed so many years ago. The same can't be said for ATutor. Well, it could be said, but not by anyone who is a reliable source. The links you offer are great for the Blackboard article, but mention ATutor only in passing, the exact kind of trivial reference that notability guidelines warn us about. Consequentially 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment... and people wonder why established media outlets openly ridicule the way WP:N is applied. This is a perfect example. You call my remarks "disisengenuous" ... and yet you offer: Oh yeah, and (Napster is) still used, even if the program isn't identical ... uhh yeah, right ... same name but, totally different company, totally different business model, totally different legal status, but yeah, uhh, it's "still in use" ... yeah and I guess the USA still has prohibition if you count the fact that four year olds still cannot legally buy alcohol. Yeah, right.
- Even if I grant the premise that Napster-now has nothign to do with Napster-then, Napster-then still generated an exponentially greater amount of media attention than ATutor has. Napster was on TV. Napster was on radio. Napster sparked the ire of the recording industry, and was the big target they aimed at the entire time. It revolutionized music sharing. ATutor has no similar claim. The second half of your argument is an ad absurdum that bears no resemblance at all to the issue at hand.Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment... and people wonder why established media outlets openly ridicule the way WP:N is applied. This is a perfect example. You call my remarks "disisengenuous" ... and yet you offer: Oh yeah, and (Napster is) still used, even if the program isn't identical ... uhh yeah, right ... same name but, totally different company, totally different business model, totally different legal status, but yeah, uhh, it's "still in use" ... yeah and I guess the USA still has prohibition if you count the fact that four year olds still cannot legally buy alcohol. Yeah, right.
-
- The only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it? Pure hogwash: Hogwash 67,500+ times over.
-
-
- Did you even look at the links? The first one, Trailfire, is a search site that's trying to steal ad traffic by listing searchable phrases. The second mirrors the first, the third article (written entirely about Blackboard and their exploits) mentions ATutor once, in a list with four other programs. Next we have a statement from a university tech service that mentions ATutor once and gives no detail about the program or commentary on it. After that is a blog, then another trivial mention in a list of e-learning products, then a single mention in a multiple-choice quiz with no critical merit or inference of notability. Then a blog. Then another blog. Then another ad site. Then two more trivial mentions (one single reference to "ATutor" in a list of five programs, with no critical mention or commentary on ATutor itself), then two list-servs, then two forum posts, then two blogs. None of that is acceptable per WP:N, and like it or not, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- So, from your quick overview of that small sampling of links you gave, you seem to be refuting your own remark that "the only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it". Shall I assume you now recant that incorrect statement? Now, if you want to take two steps backward and assert that those blogs and whatnot are insufficient under WP:RS and WP:V, you might have a point and I might actually be inclined to agree with you. So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention". (A term I think you are grossly mis-applying, since your application makes no allowance for proportionality of the mention relative to the coverage and depth of the article itself). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- From WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Emphasis mine. As for the second half of your comment, ad hominem. Stop that. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- So, from your quick overview of that small sampling of links you gave, you seem to be refuting your own remark that "the only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it". Shall I assume you now recant that incorrect statement? Now, if you want to take two steps backward and assert that those blogs and whatnot are insufficient under WP:RS and WP:V, you might have a point and I might actually be inclined to agree with you. So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention". (A term I think you are grossly mis-applying, since your application makes no allowance for proportionality of the mention relative to the coverage and depth of the article itself). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you even look at the links? The first one, Trailfire, is a search site that's trying to steal ad traffic by listing searchable phrases. The second mirrors the first, the third article (written entirely about Blackboard and their exploits) mentions ATutor once, in a list with four other programs. Next we have a statement from a university tech service that mentions ATutor once and gives no detail about the program or commentary on it. After that is a blog, then another trivial mention in a list of e-learning products, then a single mention in a multiple-choice quiz with no critical merit or inference of notability. Then a blog. Then another blog. Then another ad site. Then two more trivial mentions (one single reference to "ATutor" in a list of five programs, with no critical mention or commentary on ATutor itself), then two list-servs, then two forum posts, then two blogs. None of that is acceptable per WP:N, and like it or not, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Napster was revolutionary and the same can't be said for ATutor? Totally irrelevant.
- Badger Badger Badger wasn't revolutionary either, nor is The Hampster Dance. You trying to tell me that WP only has articles on revolutionary software titles? If so, that's more hogwash. Moreover, it's bias toward topics that tend to appeal to young children as opposed to professors and administrators in secondary and post-secondary education. Isn't NPOV supposed to be "non negotiable"? All bets are off when we are talking about article topics in general?
- This is a straw man. I never said that only revolutionary software should be covered; my argument is that articles require verifiability and notability to merit inclusion, and ATutor is severely lacking in the latter. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it's a straw man, then what was your point in stating the (obvious) fact that ATutor is not on the same par with Napster? What's with all the "Napster was on TV!" "Napster changed the world!". If this is a strawman, then all these points you brought up must have been irrelevant to begin with. The only reason I brought up Napster to begin with was make a very simple point (which you happen to agree with down below): that usage stats are not the only standard for software notability (since "Napster-then" as you like to call it, is now totally defunct). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ignoratio elenchi]. Your refutation of this is a non-issue, since it doesn't address the original question of verifiability and reliable sources. The point in the comparison is that Napster deserves an article, and ATutor does not. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- If it's a straw man, then what was your point in stating the (obvious) fact that ATutor is not on the same par with Napster? What's with all the "Napster was on TV!" "Napster changed the world!". If this is a strawman, then all these points you brought up must have been irrelevant to begin with. The only reason I brought up Napster to begin with was make a very simple point (which you happen to agree with down below): that usage stats are not the only standard for software notability (since "Napster-then" as you like to call it, is now totally defunct). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is a straw man. I never said that only revolutionary software should be covered; my argument is that articles require verifiability and notability to merit inclusion, and ATutor is severely lacking in the latter. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- As far as your point about Blackboard, you acknowledge that it passes your "notability" test, but the prominently cited examples of potentially-infringing software count as "trivial reference"? With all due respect, this response has zero credibility. If someone wanted to gain insight on quality of Blackboard's patent claims, where would they go for comparative research? Where would they go to find out about the validity and value of their pledge not to challenge open source projects? dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another straw man. Your "prominently cited example" is a mention in-passing, buried a few-hundred words into an article, in a list of five similar programs. The articles aren't about ATutor. They don't say anything about ATutor other than there's a program out there called ATutor, and it's kind of like Blackboard. That's the definition of a trivial reference. WP:N demands that "sources address the subject directly in detail," and these articles don't. They address Blackboard. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something? There are literally thousands of software titles comparable to BlackBoard, ATutor, and Moodle. Many of which have never seen the light of day outside local school districts. The fact that ATutor gets mentioned at all (and consistently mentioned) demonstrates notability by itself. Find me any detailed article that discusses the Blackboard patent as it relates to Open Source Software that doesn't include a mention of ATutor. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ad hominem, again. To the second, "any mention at all" is insignificant unless it comes from a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. If fifty people are talking about ATutor on their self-published web-sites, then we have to discount those voices. Allowing self-published material as an indicator of notability means we should have articles on every band with access to server space and HTML for Dummies. To the third, negative proof. And beyond that, articles that talk about Blackboard and its patent war are justification for an article about Blackboards patent war. I've made this argument quite a few times now, and you can't seem to reply to it. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something? There are literally thousands of software titles comparable to BlackBoard, ATutor, and Moodle. Many of which have never seen the light of day outside local school districts. The fact that ATutor gets mentioned at all (and consistently mentioned) demonstrates notability by itself. Find me any detailed article that discusses the Blackboard patent as it relates to Open Source Software that doesn't include a mention of ATutor. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another straw man. Your "prominently cited example" is a mention in-passing, buried a few-hundred words into an article, in a list of five similar programs. The articles aren't about ATutor. They don't say anything about ATutor other than there's a program out there called ATutor, and it's kind of like Blackboard. That's the definition of a trivial reference. WP:N demands that "sources address the subject directly in detail," and these articles don't. They address Blackboard. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as your point about Blackboard, you acknowledge that it passes your "notability" test, but the prominently cited examples of potentially-infringing software count as "trivial reference"? With all due respect, this response has zero credibility. If someone wanted to gain insight on quality of Blackboard's patent claims, where would they go for comparative research? Where would they go to find out about the validity and value of their pledge not to challenge open source projects? dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- If ATutor is indeed a piece of unknown crap software, then that would be even *more* interesting because it would tend to make Blackboard's claims of restraint ring hollow and insincere. When you delete ATutor and articles like it, you're essentially depriving readers the opportunity to make that evaluation for themselves, at least through WP. You're also obliterating a piece of history in this particular dispute.
- Wikipedia doesn't exist to "stick it to the man." If the software isn't notable, that's the end of it. It has nothing to do with the merits of a David/Goliath story or an evil Blackboard conspiracy. Furthermore, claiming that ATutor's inclusion in Wikipedia is necessary to advocate against Blackboard is an outright WP:NPOV violation. We don't take sides, we reflect what is notable. We're not obliterating history, either. If ATutor ends up getting talked about in enough reliable sources to garner notability, I've no problem seeing an article about it. But as it stands, ATutor isn't notable, and WP:CRYSTAL has something to say about keeping the article because it might be notable later. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Who said anything about "sticking it to the man"? Who said anything about Blackboard being evil? You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head that bears little or no relevance to a neutral, emotionally-detached and objective weighing of *all* material that may be relevant in the well-documented and ongoing dispute regarding intellectual property. I said there's a dispute, I didn't say which side was Goliath, I didn't even say there *was* a Goliath, I said readers should have the opportunity to evaluate that for themselves Go back and read what I said. You seem to be the only one here "taking sides". I'm sure there are many interpretations of who is right in this particular dispute, I offered only one possible interpretation that showed how ATutor could be notable even when the software itself is evaluated in the light least favorable to the people who made the software. This is a point that seems completely lost on you. NPOV is concerned with representing all views clearly and impartially. (emphasis not in original). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ad hominem, again. That's three. And again, the argument gives no answer to the original notability quandry.
-
- Who said anything about "sticking it to the man"? Who said anything about Blackboard being evil? You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head that bears little or no relevance to a neutral, emotionally-detached and objective weighing of *all* material that may be relevant in the well-documented and ongoing dispute regarding intellectual property. I said there's a dispute, I didn't say which side was Goliath, I didn't even say there *was* a Goliath, I said readers should have the opportunity to evaluate that for themselves Go back and read what I said. You seem to be the only one here "taking sides". I'm sure there are many interpretations of who is right in this particular dispute, I offered only one possible interpretation that showed how ATutor could be notable even when the software itself is evaluated in the light least favorable to the people who made the software. This is a point that seems completely lost on you. NPOV is concerned with representing all views clearly and impartially. (emphasis not in original). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't exist to "stick it to the man." If the software isn't notable, that's the end of it. It has nothing to do with the merits of a David/Goliath story or an evil Blackboard conspiracy. Furthermore, claiming that ATutor's inclusion in Wikipedia is necessary to advocate against Blackboard is an outright WP:NPOV violation. We don't take sides, we reflect what is notable. We're not obliterating history, either. If ATutor ends up getting talked about in enough reliable sources to garner notability, I've no problem seeing an article about it. But as it stands, ATutor isn't notable, and WP:CRYSTAL has something to say about keeping the article because it might be notable later. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- If ATutor is indeed a piece of unknown crap software, then that would be even *more* interesting because it would tend to make Blackboard's claims of restraint ring hollow and insincere. When you delete ATutor and articles like it, you're essentially depriving readers the opportunity to make that evaluation for themselves, at least through WP. You're also obliterating a piece of history in this particular dispute.
-
- How much you wanna bet researchers in this area would want to get an idea of prior art? How much you wanna bet they would want to know the history behind the development of Learning Management Systems? How much you wanna bet that all those so called "trivial" mentions would be considered crucial to anyone doing serious investigation in this area?
- I'm pretty sure that any serious researcher isn't going to start his investigation by thinking to himself, "I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about this." But that's beside the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and our job is not to establish the record for a company or a product or an idea. That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate. If an article or three that fulfills the requirements of WP:N and WP:V pops up that does discuss the history of LMS and clearly delineates ATutor's role in that history, then we're good. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to. And, if you are claiming that WP:RS has not been met, that's fine, but you're then changing the analysis to one of credibility of cites, and *not* notability. The latter is a recognized basis for wholesale deletion, the former is not.
- Fourth ad hominem. The discussion of credibility is an important one, and Wikipedia agrees. The entire reason we abide by doctrine in WP:RS is because credibility matters. Newspapers are built on credibility, because people don't buy a newspaper that doesn't tell the truth. In the same way, Wikipedia does not allow citations from sources of questionable repute -- to include blogs and self-published sources -- because there is no evidence of credibility. We don't quote the crazy corner who shouts about mythical government conspiracies and then make an an article about said conspiracy because he's not a reliable source. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to. And, if you are claiming that WP:RS has not been met, that's fine, but you're then changing the analysis to one of credibility of cites, and *not* notability. The latter is a recognized basis for wholesale deletion, the former is not.
- I'm pretty sure that any serious researcher isn't going to start his investigation by thinking to himself, "I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about this." But that's beside the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and our job is not to establish the record for a company or a product or an idea. That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate. If an article or three that fulfills the requirements of WP:N and WP:V pops up that does discuss the history of LMS and clearly delineates ATutor's role in that history, then we're good. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- How much you wanna bet researchers in this area would want to get an idea of prior art? How much you wanna bet they would want to know the history behind the development of Learning Management Systems? How much you wanna bet that all those so called "trivial" mentions would be considered crucial to anyone doing serious investigation in this area?
-
- I wasn't comparing ATutor to Napster in terms of usage, I was however, making the point that the user stats for a particular software package is not the only meaningful consideration. This is a point that a serious researcher in this area would readily understand; and a point that that some here on WP seem content to totally ignore. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. But this is a red herring, because the argument all along is that ATutor doesn't make any claim towards notability, including a large user base. Because a large user base would invariably generate third-party content, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- YAY! You seem to be getting it! Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. That's the only reason why I mentioned Napster (what you call "Napster-then"). That was exactly my point. This is why you can dispense with the (too obvious to mention) fact that ATutor is not on TV, not in the movies, and not changing the way people think about the universe or whatever. This is *not* the "threshold for inclusion" for WP. Even if the software were totally defunct (as is the case with what you call "Napster-then") that is not a conclusive basis for deletion under WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ignoratio elenchi. Your twisting of the original argument fails to address the questions raised. How is it that I'm talking about WP:RS again?
- YAY! You seem to be getting it! Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. That's the only reason why I mentioned Napster (what you call "Napster-then"). That was exactly my point. This is why you can dispense with the (too obvious to mention) fact that ATutor is not on TV, not in the movies, and not changing the way people think about the universe or whatever. This is *not* the "threshold for inclusion" for WP. Even if the software were totally defunct (as is the case with what you call "Napster-then") that is not a conclusive basis for deletion under WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. But this is a red herring, because the argument all along is that ATutor doesn't make any claim towards notability, including a large user base. Because a large user base would invariably generate third-party content, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't comparing ATutor to Napster in terms of usage, I was however, making the point that the user stats for a particular software package is not the only meaningful consideration. This is a point that a serious researcher in this area would readily understand; and a point that that some here on WP seem content to totally ignore. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Let's cut to the chase here: reliable references
Consequentially, you've provided plenty jabs at web-links suggesting notability for ATutor. You've given me plenty of high-school-forensics-friendly buzzwords like "red herring" and "straw man". You've implied that I have a problem with WP:N (instead of just a problem with its flagrant mis-application). You've even agreed with me that "total end-users is not the end-all for establishing software notability" (which is the only reason why the Napster comparison is even relevant) ... now I'm going to give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. You said: That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate.
You mean reliable sources like these?
- ATutor ... makes it easy to add pedagocial devices ... that are compliant with the IMS/SCORM standard. This characteristic is useful both for the design of goal-based learning and for the personalization of learning contents[2]
- Another popular VLE today is ATutor, which is an open-source ... solution created by a consortium of academics in Canada. (Goes on to describe the system architecture of ATutor and how it is useful to specific research in the development of Virtual Learning Environments).[3]
- Various Open Source CMSs have been developed ... and ... Moodle and ATutor are noted for e-learning [4]
- Also:[5]
-
- Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention. With the exception of the Glasgow Conference, these quotes prove only that ATutor exists. If each of these sentences appears in a book that's 500 pages long, then it doesn't do much to assert the notability of the subject. There was a similar discussion on another deletion debate. An editor argued that a mention of a band by a famous music journalist was a demonstrator of notability and thus of inclusion. When it came to light that the article was of significant length and that the mention was only one sentence in the article, the conclusion was that it was of insufficient weight to demonstrate notability. These sources, essentially, say the same thing as this article from the search results above: that ATutor exists, and is an open-source distance learning tool. Wikipedia requires more than proof of existence. It requires proof of notability. Why is ATutor an important distance learning tool? Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- As well as:
... the number of (LMS) has proliferated, and at least a hundred are currently available. ... In evaluating 35 OSS systems, Farrell (2003) has rated ATutor and ILIAS as the best, with Moodle close behind. Michael Hotrum and Brian Ludwig Masters of Distance Education Programme Athabasca University
-
- The Hotrum quote is interesting, but misleading. This article is a "Technical Evaluation Report" , also known as software review, only its a software review by a professor, and it's not even about ATutor. From the first sentence of the review, "The ILIAS learning management system (LMS) was evaluated, following its favourable rating in an independent evaluation study of open source software (OSS) products." The professor sets up a curriculum with ILIAS, then asks a group of ten students to review it. They reach the conclusion that, "In comparing an ATutor course website with a simple HTML-based version of the same site, the ten students voted unanimously to retain the simpler site." It goes on to say, "None voted to move to the ATutor platform. This result was disappointing to the course instructor, who had hoped for student feedback justifying a move to the superior support that would be available for ATutor in the University. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not to mention:
Its developers claim that ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market, allowing access to all potential learners, course developers, instructors, and administrators, including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies. Research conducted for this report did not reveal any other software with the same functionality for accessibility, OSS or otherwise. Sharon Clark Masters of Distance Education Programme Athabasca University (emphasis not in original)
-
- Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs. The quote, which asserts only that ATutor is one of five programs that meet their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability. The article talks mostly about its features and how to install the program -- careful if you plan on doing it with Unix, as that "requires specialized server administration skills".
- You want more?
This paper describes a project started at the Technical University of Sofia Research & Development Laboratory “E-Learning Technologies” and examines implementation of Learning Design in Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), open source based e-learning environment ATutor. DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland
Technological and pedagogical innovation has enabled the development of virtual environments that bring about the possibility of learning with others at a distance. The development of these virtual environments is nowadays an expanding field of research. (further in the article) 3.1 The platform used ... using a platform built by a LCMS (Learning Content Management System) and a Groupware. The collaborative learning environment was then developed from the platforms ATutor and ACollab ... Collaborative Learning Environments for Teacher Education Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
-
- The article, "Learning Design Implementation in SCORM E-Learning Environment" is a scholarly jaunt through the world of SCORM implementation in distance-learning software, which uses ATutor as its test subject. The article is a thrilling discussion of the architecture of such a system, and how students interact with database services to acquire learning units, but again, mentions ATutor only in passing.
- And so, in closing, I offer this. ATutor is one of many (dozens and dozens, according to the article) of open-source distance learning tools available to the academic world, and is the subject of research by professors at Athabasca University. These discussions, which read off the features of the program and whether or not ten students like it (they don't), amount to technical reviews and not much more. I've challenged you to provide reliable sources that demonstrate the products notability -- you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do. Along the way, you've spent roughly the same amount of words (more, if you don't count quoted text) insulting me as you have arguing your case. And I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article, "Learning Design Implementation in SCORM E-Learning Environment" is a scholarly jaunt through the world of SCORM implementation in distance-learning software, which uses ATutor as its test subject. The article is a thrilling discussion of the architecture of such a system, and how students interact with database services to acquire learning units, but again, mentions ATutor only in passing.
BONUS POINTS: If you can demonstrate familiarity with any key concepts in this subject area, and explain why all of these links are inadequate, and do so without introducing cliches from debating 101; or precisely define what you mean by "trivial mention" ... you will have done a lot to enhance your credibility in this discussion.
[edit] Try Google Scholar for plenty of references
- Comment: The best sources I could dig up through Google (and belive me, I dug) were two reviews (neither of which I'm convinced of the reliability of) and one overall survey of this kind of software. Any mentions I found of the Blackboard patent thing only mentioned ATutor in conjunction with of Sakai and Moodle, which doesn't strike me as much justification for an individual article for ATutor. Take this information as you will. Nifboy 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- You apparently didn't aim your shovel very well (See e.g., the notes and references I've just added). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, a simple Google Scholar search would have saved us all a lot of drama. C'est la vie. I'd also like to add to the list the report by the Commonwealth of Learning cited in your first source. Nifboy 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- You apparently didn't aim your shovel very well (See e.g., the notes and references I've just added). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete.--Amadscientist 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] To User:Consequentially (after his/her response to the references)
You've offered many assertions that seem self-contradictory, unsubstantiated or totally off-topic. I could indicate them all exhaustively, but I'd rather try to focus on the most critical points. If you still wish to dispute this, please help validate my continuing assumption that all your remarks are offered in good-faith, by responding directly to these points.
Consequentially Item1: you've ... spent ... words insulting me
- Please quote the exact text where I insulted you. If you do, I will happily either: 1) recant the specific remark(s) and apologize to you, as well as take specific steps to ensure it does not happen again; or 2) explain why the remark(s) is (are) not an insult or attack against you personally in the first place. If you fail to comply with this request, I will disregard this assertion as unsubstantiated and off-topic.
- "You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something?",
-
-
- There seems to be a sizable WP sub-population with the (very unproductive) practice of linking to articles from Category:Logical fallacies as a response to all disagreement. Admittedly, the "Wizard of Oz" comment was off-topic, but, quite frankly, the practice strikes me as very unhelpful, a tad condescending in itself, and it gets old real quick ... my attempt at humor (weak as it was) was not a personal attack, but rather a commentary on this very annoying behavioral pattern.
-
-
-
- Nevertheless, I do apologize if this remark sounded disparaging, but this tactic strikes me as the least conducive means toward open discussion. It doesn't seem much better than someone closing their eyes and ears and repeating at the top of their voice " ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...".
-
-
-
- Not all disagreement constitutes a logical fallacy ... sometimes people are simply operating on different assumptions. I have one request for you. Please consider that rational people can (and do) see things differently. If you already considered and agree with that point, then you may understand why the "logical fallacy link-fest" strikes some people as very unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head,"
-
-
- Your "Sticking it to the man" and "David and Goliath" remarks sounded more like a great pitch for a movie, than a response to anything I (or anyone else) had said in this discussion. I never for once claimed there was a "David and Goliath" story or a battle between "good and evil" going on here. My point was (and still is) that someone researching the "Intellectual property" angle would want information on all the key parties, so as to make a balanced evaluation of the merits of their claims. Information relevant to those claims should not be omitted. That seems to me to be what NPOV is all about.
-
-
-
- You apparently disagree with me, and that's fine, I can handle disagreement. However, the "David and Goliath" aspect (although fanciful and entertaining) seemed more like storytelling than discussion. In fact, I strongly disagree with the "Blackboard is evil" remarks, since they are a business and I expect them protect their investment using every lawful means available to them. The point is, my personal viewpoints (and yours) should not impede us from trying to view every article from "multiple viewpoints" so as to allow readers to formulate a "back-story" for themselves. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention."
-
-
- This was another response to the Category:Logical fallacies link-fest ... and also to the fact that you never defined what you consider to be "trivial mention". I still think your definition may not be entirely consistent with (what I consider to be) a direct reading of WP:N.
-
-
-
- This indeed may have sounded disparaging, I apologize for that. Please consider, however, that discussion is a two-way street. If there is a point you feel needs to be made multiple times, or by repeated links to a WP article, you might want to consider making it a footnote, and incorporate it by reference. Also it helps if you can define your understanding of key terms, instead of just repeating the terms, that also gets a bit tiresome. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- "Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to."
-
-
- I suggested an option that might help "serious researchers" ... and you suggested that serious researchers don't start with WP. That may be true now, but frankly that is a response that lacks vision, and is (unfortunately) the very kind of attitude that leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.
-
-
-
- This was not a personal attack, but rather a suggestion that I think more WP contributors should take to heart. If we (implicitly or expressly) downgrade the overall credibility of Wikipedia while simultaneously contributing to it ... then what the *bleep* are we doing here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Your tone throughout this discussion has been disparaging and hostile, with thinly-veiled phrases that smell strongly of poisoning the well. I refer back to arguments on notability, sources, and the interpretation of policy; you pepper your responses with condescension. Even now, as you issue your list of ultimatums, your tone is sanctimonious and dripping with ridicule. You seem to be misinterpreting the fact that I disagree with you as the fact that I'm a small-minded child who couldn't possibly understand the big scary world of rhetoric and argument. It's to the point now where I'm not going to bother checking this page again until an admin makes his final decision. For me, putting up with your petty attacks isn't worth asserting my point of view. You've done a good job of being a dick. You'll likely interpret this as me running with my tail between my legs, frightened away by your superior intellect and command of language, but in fact, I'm just tired of you. Congratulations, sir. You've exhausted my patience to the point where I'd rather leave this to the rest of AfD votes than deal with you. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- You provided specific text, I thank you for that, as it gives me a chance to respond directly. May I suggest that specifics are far more productive than generalizations [Note000]. I don't know you personally, and I have no idea of your preferences or your general communication style. What I interpret as an extremely careful attempt to avoid any hint of "personal insult" you might interpret as "being aloof and sanctimonious" ... do you see the difficulty here?
-
-
-
-
-
- Reasonable people can (and do) interpret things differently. If misunderstandings can be discussed and avoided, that seems much better than assuming one party is always trying to "defeat" someone else. Not every tale is an epic "David vs Goliath" ... even David had his time of simply tending his sheep. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
Consequentially Item2: It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it.
- Please either: 1) acknowledge that this remark has been shown to be incorrect; 2) provide reliable evidence in support of it, proving that all of the authors of the cited references are the "people who made it"; or 3) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that the remark is incorrect, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
- You've drug this along from the very top of the thread, long after the argument has moved elsewhere. Yes, there are other articles about ATutor. But this is an irrelevant conclusion and empty victory, because it still doesn't address the core issues I've raised since the beginning. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok, that's progress. I'm just attempting to enumerate all the issues here and check off which ones can be thrown out, and which still need to be addressed. The best way to "address core issues" is one at a time, no? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Consequentially Item3: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
- Please either: 1) acknowledge that more than zero of the cited references surpass the level of material indicated here; or 2) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that this is not a critical issue here, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
- Your twisting of this statement into an indictment of all your sources is evidence of the venom with which you approach this discussion. I made that argument against your original claim of "65,000 examples of notability," the majority of which were violations of WP:SPS. Now you're setting it up as a straw man. This argument still applies where I originally made it, and that's the end of it. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Please see my remark above about avoiding generalizations [Note000]. Like I said, I'm attempting nothing more than to see which items still need to be covered, and which do not. One at a time. So far, I have Item2 and Item3 as officially resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am not correct, please clarify. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Consequentially Item4: you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do.
- Please explain: 1) How this does not refute your own earlier remark the "only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it" [see Item2 above]; 2) How the personal preferences of (ten) students has anything to do with WP:N, which states notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". (emphasis not in original). 3) How the opinion of "some" (ten) students justifies the conclusion: "alternative to Blackboard that students don't like". If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that this point is not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
-
- Your first is an irrelevant conclusion, responded to above. Your second is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the argument, taking out of context to prevent rhetorical stasis. The personal preferences of ten students are the basis of the paper you site, and the argument is an indictment of the source, not of the article's notability. Bad sources bestow bad notability, and insignificant sources bestow no notability at all. Which I've been saying four about three rounds now. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure what you mean by "Bad sources bestow bad notability" ... unless I am mistaken, we both agree that WP:SPS has now been dealt with and is no longer a concern (Item3). Is there some other definition of "Bad sources" you are referring to here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Consequentially Item5: (Regarding the Sharon Clark cite [22]) Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs ... their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability
- Please explain why all of the following do not indicate notability:
- online software features of value to disabled learners in distance education;
- ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market (i.e., there is no alternative, free or otherwise, with the same or better level of support for disabled learners);
- the software evaluation criteria are from The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) (established in 1944, international with thousands of members)
- the "other programs" mentioned aren't even in the same category as ATutor, (one of which is a speech synthesis program).
- Which of these is not notable? The fact that it helps disabled learners? The fact that it is the only software title in this space that is cited as meeting "their" criteria? The fact that "their" criteria are derived from ASTD, an international orgnanization with tens of thousands of active members who specialize in precisely this subject area?
- If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that your summary of the Sharon Clark cite is insufficient, and therefore inadequate basis for discrediting the cite itself, or for deleting ATutor.
-
- Because arguing that it's a useful program is not the same as aruging its a notable program. I've got a nifty little device in my dorm room that makes ironing military creases a breeze. It's useful, and plenty of people have asked me to make one for them. But it's not notable. And that's why the indictment of the source was made. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm not sure I understand your point about the ironing device. If you had: reliable sources; published by laundry appliances experts; and your device was specifically mentioned; and your device was specifically evaluated against criteria devised by a 60 year old international standards body; and your device was the only device cited as passing all the evaluation criteria (as compared to other devices both on the market and off the market); and those criteria were the only such standards established for people with physical disabilities ... are you saying it would still not be notable? If not, can you please describe what else would be needed to make such a device notable? (remember: notability is distinct from "fame" "importance" and "popularity"). dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Consequentially Item6: Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention.
- You have yet to define your interpretation of "trivial mention". This is especially troubling since your summary of the citations (Clark for just one glaring example) suggests you are using a definition that is both: 1) unsupported by WP:N; and 2) based on a superficial reading of the references themselves.[6] Please either: 1) specifically define your reliance on "trivial mention"; or 2) otherwise explain why this assertion has merit under a direct reading of WP:N. If you do not comply with this request I will assume you have no clearly-specified definition for this standard, and therefore consider it solely a matter of your personal opinion.dr.ef.tymac 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- In an article that explores the structure of learning software and the interaction of "learning units" with students while using ATutor as the medium for that analysis, the merit is for structures of learning software, not for ATutor. If a report is written on a new synthetic rubber that makes superior tires, and the author tested the tires on his home-made go-kart, the notability is directed towards the tires, not the home-made go-kart. I can't make it any simpler than that. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summary and conclusion
-
-
- Here's where I think your reading of the references may be a bit off the mark, and this is a good place to summarize and conclude. Using your "go-kart" analogy, ATutor would be the synthetic rubber *not* the go-kart. If you read the references carefully, you will notice that (in more than one instance) the research is predicated on finding a flexible tool that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of different contexts, just like the "rubber" in your analogy.
-
-
-
- For example, in one instance, the "rubber meets the road" in the context of learning environments for goal-based learning among students [2] (see specifically, pages 496 through 498 describing the use of ATutor). In another instance, the "rubber" is adapted to develop a b-learning system for professional development among teachers at the Graduate School of Education of Bragança [23]. These two examples are different categories of use and they entail entirely different research methodologies and different objectives.
-
-
-
- Moreover, when someone uses a "new synthetic rubber" on a go-kart, or someone else uses it for a safety helmet, and they publish their results, which are they more likely to explain in exhausting detail, the rubber itself? or the performance characteristics of the go-kart, helmet, or whatever other invention they were trying to perfect? Isn't it reasonable to expect they will only mention the rubber "in passing"? Isn't it reasonable to expect that the person who uses the rubber is not going to be particularly concerned with documenting details about it, just as long as it meets their immediate need? Indeed, if *anyone* is going to go into great detail about the rubber ... wouldn't it be "the people who manufactured the rubber itself?"
-
-
-
- My point should be pretty apparent. We've already established (per Item2) that ATutor has been mentioned in reliable sources by folks other than its original inventors. A careful reading of the references also reveals that ATutor has been used in different contexts, for different objectives. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor has been cited in reference to other related issues such as Intellectual property, open source software, accessibility for disabled users, and international standards for adaptive learning technology. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor is uniquely situated as being the only software of its kind cited for full accessibility. All of these should be more than enough to establish notability. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Keep. Problems fixed . --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Delete. Apparently, no independent secondary sources discuss the subject with non-trivial depth. As the subject is software, the concern is that this is spam. Perhaps if someone could show that this subject is an important part of Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and needs to be split off due to article size issues, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Can you please explain why the mention in the Looi cite[2] constitutes trivial depth? Also, are you saying that you've read all the references cited here, and all of the references returned by Google Scholar?
- That source sounds to me like a primary source. It sounds like it is reporting facts. I’d ask to see a review of ATutor, giving commentary, saying it is good/bad/valuable/worthless. If there are reviews, then I expect to see them added to the article, with claims clearly referenced to them. A guide to using ATutor, or a summary of what it does, or a review of the class of software, is not good enough. That is primary information, which is good, but a good secondary source is needed. On the face of it, the article reads to me like a planted promotional piece, written by an advocate/author, sourced entirely from the publisher’s site. I see above that there may possibly be secondary sources. One I couldn’t get, a second I would have to pay for. I can follow your ref#5, and I find only three mentions in passing. None have been integrated into to the article. So I gave up. The article claims that “ATutor is now used around the world…” If the article provided independent verification of this claim, then I would be more impressed. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Just for clarification, can you please specify which source you mean when you say "that source sounds to me like a primary source." (e.g., the link or ISBN) so I can know we are talking about the same thing? Also, can you define what you mean by "primary information" I am assuming you mean "distributed by the developer of the software itself" (if that's exactly what you mean, no need to clarify, if not, please do). Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- By primary, I meant the standard scholarly term primary source, which is in keeping with usage at WP:NOR. My problem was that, as per Consequentially, the references seemed to be only inconsequential mentions, reporting features of multiple software packages. I was also influenced by frustration with tedious arguments here, confusing referencing here, and completely inadequate referencing at the article itself. The article is now fixed. The referencing is now plenty good-enough. --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Also, why is it that Open Source software cited in numerous scholarly publications counts as "spam"? Isn't scholarly sources and Open Source what Wikipedia is all about? dr.ef.tymac 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Numerous scholarly publications would be good. Add them to the article if they belong. Wikipedia is about anything that other people have already written about. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This AfD discussion is over 50 kilobytes long. I hope it will be settled soon. JIP | Talk 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Update: Instead of adding cites and references here, I've gone ahead and some to the article directly, now the article has some inline cites whereas before this AfD started, it had zero. This should help people who wish to fairly evaluate the issues here, but are too busy to read through all the discussion. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it's a decent, informative article and the sources seem fine to me. If this is spam, then we need more spam. ←BenB4
- Keep per BenB4 and xDanielxTalk. Mathmo Talk 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and close asap. Good article, good subject, fine sources. Questioning WP:AGF. --User:Krator (t c) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notes and references
- ^ Perhaps the best proof of this point is Napster. An article about a well-known software title that satisfies WP:N even though it is no longer used at all.
- ^ a b c Looi, Chee-Kit (2005). Artificial Intelligence in Education Supporting Learning Through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology. IOS Press. ISBN 1586035304.
- ^ Williams, Roy (2003). 2nd European Conference on E-Learning Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, 6-7 November 2003. Academic Conferences Limited. ISBN 0954457749.
- ^ Amant, Kirk (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 1591409993.
- ^ Li, Qing (2004). New Horizon In Web-based Learning. World Scientific. ISBN 9812560297.
- ^ For example, a footnote in WP:N shows how a biographical article on a political figure is not enough to establish notability of a jazz band WP:N#fn_1. The mention of the band is indicated as a "trivial mention". In contrast, all of the cites provided here relate directly to the subject matter of this article. The cites don't mention ATutor in the context of articles on totally different subjects (biographical articles or articles about musicians). It is directly mentioned (and even described as unique) by educators and evaluators who specialize in this area. Even in the instances where it is given a "one sentence mention" ... those articles relate ATutor directly to the subject matter of the entire article itself (i.e., Intellectual property rights, theories and methodologies in distance education, and compliance with standards for disabled learners).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --DarkFalls talk 06:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McSwiggen Village
The village itself is very briefly mentioned in Family Guy, and does not warrant its own article. Saget53 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into Family Guy. Most of it is speculation and "original research" anyway. Deli nk 18:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Clearly Zidel333's merge suggestion below is preferable to mine. Deli nk 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FICT, no real notability outside the show itself. Compare Springfield (The Simpsons). --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to List of places on Family Guy, but take out OR first. Zidel333 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pilgrims Mennonite Church
Non-notable church. Nyttend 17:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Makes no assertion of notability. Totally POV self-aggrandizing advertisement for this church. Created by single-purpose account User:Burnetttg, whose only contributions to Wikipedia are the creation and maintenance of this article. wikipediatrix 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No outside sources, non-notable. Nice enough folks, it appears, but it's still Just Another Church. --Finngall talk 17:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, no third party sources. The church is definitely using Wikipedia to promote themselves (the website refers the reader to the article). Hut 8.5 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, NN church. Fails WP:ORG. (The Wikipedia link is visible in the Google cache; it describes the article as a "brief summary" of the website.) Wikipedia is not a webhost for church brochures, sorry. --Dhartung | Talk 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG & WP:NOT. – Alex43223 T | C | E 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, very nice people, but NN, per all of the above. Bearian 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, evidently WP:POINT nomination. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amarillo Design Bureau Inc.
Does not meet notability guidelines Obewanz 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Also this entry asserts relevance under the Wikipedia Texas project - my response to that inclusion is as follows:
I don't know where to start on this issue, but this is absurd. You should not start a project on a state and then begin to list advertisements for companies that operate within the state. If the article was about a state department or similar entity then it would certainly be appropriate. Company listings are found in the phone book, both online and in print. Given the instistence on removal of certain other companies based on non-notability criteria, this article too should be deleted. Obewanz 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. The place to suggest deletion of this article is AFD, not MFD. If you need help in figuring out how to put it up on AFD, I'm sure someone would be willing to help you. I do think that your nomination smacks of WP:POINT, over the Miniature GameWorks article being speedied. As for the ADB article being adopted by WikiProject Texas, it is up to them to decide whether they want it falls under their project or not, but that is not related to whether the article gets deleted or not. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok Mr. Groggy Dice... If I am trying to understand the difference between the two and why certain articles remain when other articles are removed, is it not appropriate to question the actions and use the recent experience as a reference? Or should I merely keep everything in the abstract to keep from offending anyone?
Now that we are past that issue, please explain the difference between AFD and MFD? And since you so aptly noted that I might need help figuring out how to put it up on AFD, maybe you would be willing to assist. Also, could you please provide the link to WP:POINT so that I may examine your reference? Also, if information has been sitting in WP for quite awhile and not been reviewed, yet EXACTLY the same information is submitted recently and receives Speedy Deletion, shouldn't that indicate that someone needs to examine the existing entries to determine why they should stay versus the ones that no one will ever see because of Speedy Deletion?
This whole thing smacks of a political power-ride, if you ask me - which is completely and totally inappropriate in the context of an "Encyclopedia". If you are going to delete new entries based on a given criteria, then you should be prepared to evaluate existing entries based upon the same criteria. Then again, that would be the Non-PC - correct thing to do.
Just to add a little further information to your comment; I chose this entry because it was obvious to me that it was a marketing campaign. The information presented only tended to raise the self-importance of the game, the company, and it's owner(s). It does not present any information on how this game has affected gaming culture, provided anything notable to the gaming community, nor has it even incorporated information found outside of it's own published material. This seems to be clear to me given the fact that I have been pointed to WP:CORP for information regarding this controversy.
- Basically, the process is similar to the one you already went through with MFD, just using afd instead of mfd on the templates. Directions are at WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion. However, I hope you reconsider. SFB is one of the oldest and longest-running wargame series, and your nomination of ADB is likely to be seen as WP:POINT sour grapes over your own company's article getting deleted. It will just alienate people further. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think this company easily passes notability as publisher of Star Fleet Battles (as Groggy Dice says above), amongst other games. I would also agree with Groggy Dice in that the nomination seems to be a case of WP:POINT and not really done in good faith. User:Craw-daddy|Talk 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: (coughs) SFB has over sixty thousand Google hits. ADB has over fifty thousand. It is a renowned wargame and a renowed gaming publisher, respectively, and I am all ears as to what "notability guidelines" the nom is referring, precisely, or which policies require articles to demonstrate proof that the subjects have affected a culture or provided anything to the community. RGTraynor 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable games publisher, trivially confirmed. Obewanz, none of your complaints make sense. A WikiProject banner on a Talk page is not an "assertion of relevance" (whatever that is) and has no bearing on a topic's notability. This certainly does appear to be a WP:POINT-making violation as evidenced by all the leading questions in your rant. --Dhartung | Talk 18:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Now that this is at AfD, I'll declare clearly as a keep. From his talk page and Marasmusine's talk page, the nominator seems to be reacting to his company's article getting A7 deleted by trying to get other wargame company articles deleted. He has also picked a fight at Talk:Charles S. Roberts that a wargamer like him ought to know is frivolous. Hopefully, he will accept that his company doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, and stop this unproductive campaign. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - AFD started to make a point. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep per Groggy Dice. --Finngall talk 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Bobby Blackwolf Show
Non-notable per WP:WEB. Doesn't contain any reliable independent sources. Me5000 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The sources are insufficient: the homepage, blogs, and myspace. They do not establish notability. Shalom Hello 17:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB by a mile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete based on agreement with lack of notability as established by a lack of independent, verifiable sources of the subject. - Nascentatheist 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I cannot vote or edit the entry (as I am the person who runs the show) and I'm positive that this entry will be deleted since I very rarely edit Wikipedia articles at all, much less my own, but my question is - how would I submit sources of notability? I cannot edit the article as it would violate WP:NPOV or something else, and it seems like my listeners didn't do a good enough job writing this in the first place. I just see a lot of other podcasts that I work with not getting touched with RfD's and wonder how they've avoided the RfD-hammer. No, I don't hold a grudge or anything, I'm actually surprised it took this long to get RfD'd - but I would love to know that once I do get more notable sources than I do now how I would submit those to Wikipedia in the future without compromising any standards since I do have a vested interest in the article. (I can also provide listener statistics as well.) Thanks for your time, sorry it seems my show has cluttered up Wikipedia - I never asked people to put it here and I did not put it here myself. --BlackwolfGA 20:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Inforonment
Portmanteau of 'information' and 'environment'. Uncited, no verifiable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NEO. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 16:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place to try and establish new words. 345th 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable neologism. --Targeman 17:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia does not promote new words or concepts. Hut 8.5 17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails lexical euphony test as well as WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Then again, blog caught on ... --Dhartung | Talk 10:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The song itself doesn't meet any of the proposed standards for songs under WP:MUSIC, but it having charted in the Netherlands may make a DRV of the artist's article more persuasive - doesn't save the song article, however. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can't Let Go (Linda Kiraly song)
Non-notable future single, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Artist article has already been deleted as non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Kiraly. Prod was removed without explanation by an anon IP with no other edits. --Finngall talk 15:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, lacks notablity, artist doesn't even have article. BUT, surely, (according to article) it's already been released so doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL? --Belovedfreak 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete lacks notability, looks like an advertisement. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. If this single has charted, then surely Linda Kiraly is notable? Unless that chart position's bogus of course. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the song if it doesn't have an article about the artist. On the other hand, it probably should have an article about the artist. A deletion review may be in order. --Metropolitan90 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wedding valet
This article seems to be at best a neologism and at worst a hoax. When PRODded with request for verification, it was edited with a link that does not seem to include the term. Moonriddengirl 15:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing on google that does not involve parking valets. Sounds completely made up--Victor falk 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I originally speedied the article as it was clearly a vanity piece -- the sentence "Jesse Gaibor became the first named Valet in existence, when he was asked to serve in said capacity by Kristofer Lyons, and he will do so on May 3, 2008" pretty much seals its fate. (The original article also gives the two men credit for coming up with the term; see Wikipedia is not for something made up one day.) The repost strips the CSD A7 aspects of the article so I didn't speedy it again. -- Merope 15:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (e/c) per WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, and in light of Merope's comments. If not a hoax per se, an attempt to introduce a new term into the vernacular. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. --Belovedfreak 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. 345th 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unable to find use of the term elsewhere. Previous edit by the original author appears to support the belief this is a term made up by the author or close friends rather than a term in wide spread use. -- SiobhanHansa 00:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfy so that creator can merge contents into the book author's biography.. Carlossuarez46 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Homo Aestheticus
Contested prod. This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits. Realkyhick 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Update: Agreement reached between nominator and original author to merge portions of this article with that of the book's author. Additional sourced provided since nomination solve the sources issue as well. Request that this discussion be closed with result of Merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research. --Finngall talk 15:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per above (original research) :) -- Stwalkerster talk 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC) }}
- Article now amended removing all value judgements and adding full references. This article is now a straight description of the book in question, is not original research, and meets Wikipedia guidelines.--Wavecreststudios 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The references only refer to the book itself. We need references from other independent, reliable sources that talk about the book (Amazon and other booksellers don't count, except to get an ISBN) and prove that it is notable. Realkyhick 19:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- How does the article assert notability? --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, seems particularly redolent of WP:COPYVIO though Google turns up no identical text. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article asserts notability based on the fact that the subject of the book - "making special" - is the most notable contribution to the subject by an author widely acclaimed as an accomplished anthropologist, indeed, Wikipedia has an article on her - see 'Ellen Dissanayake'. She is a key player in the emerging field of Bioaesthetics. The Wikipedia article mentions "making special" but does not give any significant explanation, and I felt that a description of her book on the subject would help. Regarding copyright, I am telling you that I wrote this article, myself, without copying from anyone - and speaking as a lecturer on the subject of Bioaesthetics, I think I am able to write my own articles without the need to copy. There is also NO copyright infringement here, indeed, I sent a copy of the text to Ellen prior to publication for her approval, which I promptly received. Peter Baker. --Wavecreststudios 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Other references talking about Homo Aestheticus:
1. "Offers a wealth of original and critical thinking." American Anthropologist
2. "Homo Aestheticus calls for a counterrevolution in our thinking about art. It is timely, provocative, and immensely valuable." Philosophy and Literature
3. "A wide-ranging essay on the place of art in human evolution and in the future, at once learned and spirited" Howard Gardner, the John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Professor of Cognition and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He also holds positions as Adjunct Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and Senior Director of Harvard Project Zero. In 2004 he was named an Honorary Professor at East China Normal University in Shanghai. Among numerous honors, Gardner received a MacArthur Prize Fellowship in 1981 and in 2000 he received a Fellowship from the John S. Guggenheim Memorial Foundation. In 2005, he was selected by Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines as one of 100 most influential public intellectuals in the world. He has received honorary degrees from twenty-one colleges and universities, including institutions in Ireland, Italy, Israel, and Chile. The author of over twenty books translated into twenty-six languages, and several hundred articles, Gardner is best known in educational circles for his theory of multiple intelligences, a critique of the notion that there exists but a single human intelligence that can be assessed by standard psychometric instruments.
Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have proper citations (issue date, author name where known, page number) for those quotes you just posted — which should have been put in the article itself, by the way? See this page for instructions. Realkyhick 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way guys... as a total novice, just wanting to understand how things work... were I to challenge the articles on Wikipedia that you have there about yourselves (not that I would want to do that, because like you I believe in being inclusive rather than exclusive)... how do the rules about not writing articles about oneself operate in this case, and - forgive me if I looked in the wrong place - but I couldn't see anything there in the way of proof of YOUR notability... independent, reliable references, that is?? Are there different rules for you? Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 20:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- If someone is silly enough to write an article about me, then you can argue my notability all night long. Heck, I'd probably speedy-delete myself. But this isn't about me, or even you personally, although you seem to be trying to make it personal if the message you left on my talk page is any indication. It all boils down to the fact that 1) Wikipedia is not a place for book reviews or personal essays, but an encyclopedia where subjects are presented with as much source material to verify as possible; and 2) the notability of the book itself, given the source citations (or lack thereof) presented in the article. Realkyhick 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The article you now have is NOT a book review. NOR is it a personal essay, any more than ANY other existing entry in Wikipedia is a personal essay. Every sentence in the article is verifyible by anyone who cares to look at the book: every one of them is a verifiable fact, not an opinion or a theory or original research. When I say "she said 'X'" I may have paraphrased it, but that she said 'X' in as many words is a FACT, and I have not only documented EVERY SENTENCE in the article by page number, but I have told you that I had ELLEN'S confirmation that my article is an accurate description of her book. No reasonable reader would need the exalted journals I mentioned to say Ellen is a significant anthropologist, or that her main contribution is notable, particularly since - again as I have already told you - she is ALREADY in Wikipedia, including mention of her book Homo Aestheticus, and of 'making special' as her most notable contribution. You and anyone else could check that beyond ANY doubt whatsoever should that be your real concern. And I don't think that Howard Gardner saying it's a good book adds anything to what I wrote, which is far more specific - if his quote DOES add anything I didn't cover, please tell me what this is, and if you are right, I will add it. If, though, you are worried that I might have made up these quotes, then take a look at the back of the dust jacket of 'Art and Intimacy', also by Ellen Dissanayake, and published by the University of Washington in 2000. You will find them all there, back of the dust jacket. In terms of page number, publication, and date of my references, that, I think satisfies the last item on the exclusion list you seem to be working through. Unless of course, you think that the University of Washington is not a worthy source? If so, then please say so and I will take it up with them - I'm sure they would be interested to know your opinions. And on the personal issue, I have no problem with you, only with the strange way you are seeking to apply Wikipedia's rules in this particular case. Everything in the article is factual, everything is documented, everything is verifiable, and the subject of the article I have clearly documented as notable. I have now also documented where these additional quotes in praise of the book come from. If there are any OTHER reasons why you think Wikepedia readers should not know about the ideas presented in her book, please let us all know, otherwise I'd be obliged if you would openly withdraw your objections to it. Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios 22:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, despite the arguments of Peter Baker --Wavecreststudios. By the way, by "the articles on Wikipedia that you have there about yourselves", I'm thinking he may mean our userpages. Nyttend 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- So nice to see a closely reasoned argument from someone claiming the right to judge ideas. Thanks Nyttend. I wonder what would happen to justice if the prosecution did not need to present a case, and could instead convict based on their conscious or subconscious prejudice?--Wavecreststudios 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- First, let me say that I find the AfD a bit premature. Granted, the article as it was first written was more or less a book review. However, Realkyhick nominated this article not even ten minutes after it first appeared. With respect, the amount of time between Wavecreststudios's first post and Realkyhick's PROD was 5 minutes. That is really not enough time to allow adaquet research to determine notability. It took me at least 15 minutes to assemble the short—but significant—list of references below. Aside from the short period between article creation and PROD, it should be noted that this appears to be Wavecreststudios's first significant contribution to Wikipedia. He is probably a bit unclear on the fine points of our rules regulating content. I think it would have been prudent to inform him of the problems with his article and give him sometime to correct them before nominating it to be deleted.
- -Second, a bit of research establishes that this book is notable with-in its field. Here is a limited list of scholarly articles that quote Ms. Dissanayake's text. (I found these using Project Muse, the online journal database. It should be noted that project muse archives a limited number of journals, and it is likely further articles quoting the book have appeared.)
-
- The Chaucer Review 39.3 (2005) 225-233
- Philosophy of Music Education Review 11.1 (2003) 23-44
- Criticism 47.4 (2007) 421-450
- Journal of American Folklore 116.462 (2003) 444-464
- Leonardo - Volume 38, Number 3, June 2005, pp. 239-244
- Journal of the History of Ideas 64.4 (2003) 581-597
- The Journal of Aesthetic Education 41.1 (2007) 90-104
- Philosophy and Literature 23.2 ( 1999) 393-413
- Philosophy and Literature 25.2 (2001) 251-277
- The Journal of Aesthetic Education 39.2 (2005) 36-57
-
- -Also, you can read a review of the book in question here. The text was first printed in Philosophy and Literature 18 (1994).
- -My vote is merge: Though I believe this is book is notable, I am voting that the material in the current Homo Aestheticus article be rewritten to include sources and merged with the article on its Ellen Dissanayake. My limited research showed that a number of authors had written books or articles discussing the concept of a Homo Aestheticus. The homo aestheticus article should discuss the term in general not as it is used in one book. Fixer1234 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge is fine with me. I'm not sure if I would have to check and report on all the literature for the merge to take place (I really don't have time for so large an enterprise), or whether it would be enough to merge the existing article and list the other references mentioned above for people to follow up should they wish. My only purpose here was to see if it was possible to start using Wikipedia to pull together the existing strands of knowledge about Bioaesthetics as a framework for researchers, and I had not realised - if that is the case - that I would need to review the whole literature, or that Project Muse was available for me to do that. When I was asked for evidence of what I claimed in the article - and it IS a description, not a review - then I made the changes I thought had been requested. I expected to make changes, but I had thought people would give constructive criticism rather than try to squash the knowledge it contained. Anyway, I really appreciate the input and help. As Fixer1234 suspects, this was my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia - Ellen Dissanayake has a lot to say about my subject, so I wanted to start with her book - and I was totally astonished, dismayed and discouraged at the reaction I got.
- But then when I noted from realkyhick's user page that he was a strong supporter of Pentecostal evangelism and the Assemblies of God, I jumped to the conclusion that he had some kind of search in operation to alert him to any new article relating to Evolution (how else, I thought, did he spot it so fast amongst all that must be going on - must have been spotted almost the second it went up) and that his motive was to suppress the ideas it contained. Evolution is at the core of this article and is a prime target for evangelist thinking, after all. And the speed with which the article was AfD-ed, not just queried, and what I saw as the intransigent position adopted and the apparent inability to respond to the points I made - this all added to my suspicions, but of course, that is all they are - suspicions. I don't know him, and I don't know how he found the article so fast, I don't know if that was the motive, and when challenged he certainly denied that it was. What I WOULD say, though, is that in good justice systems, if a judge is aware that he has a conflict of interest in trying a case, then he disqualifies himself from that case - or faces trouble if he doesn't. Similarly if a jury member has a vested interest, or for clear reasons is unlikely to be open to reason in a trial, the defence has the right to object to that juror. Why, I wonder, is there no such protocol in Wikipedia? Are we not open to wholesale censorship from any and every vested interest or fundamentalist group with enough organisation and clout? Until Fixer1234's input I was in despair of the standards I saw on Wikipedia, the apparent inability to present a coherent case or to assist in the salvage of the article, and about to tell everyone what I thought of their professionalism, and retire from Wikipedia for good, advising everyone I know in my field not to waste their time with the website. I really think editors need to have a set of professional standards they should abide by. That's obvious, isn't it? --Wavecreststudios 12:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Wavecreststudios: There is a new page patrol on Wikipedia, which allows editors to see a list of recently created pages. This may be how Realkyhick found the article - it's a good way for new articles to be checked and classified. kateshortforbob 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Which, as any cursory glance at my edit history would show, is exactly how I found the article. I spend a great deal of time (more than I should) on new page patrol. There are a number of editors and administrators that can attest to this. Furthermore, I take great offense at Wavecreststudios an his continuing accusations that I am on some sort of crusade on behalf of the church I belong to. I consider this to be a personal attack, which is a strong violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:PA). I do not go surfing around Wikipedia, seeking to eliminate any view with which I or my church disagree. Again, even the most cursory glance at my user contributions page would reveal that my only agenda is to keep Wikipedia free of articles which clearly do not belong there, regardless of ideology. I am not a juror who should be summarily cast aside because the defendant doesn't like him. I brought the charge, for lack of a better term. I strongly stand by my original reason for nominating this article for deletion: "This article appears to be a book review, which is substantiated by the original author's edit comments, thereby violating original research policy. No references at all. Few relevant Google hits." The original author's insistence on making this a personal issue goes against the very principle of "professional standards" that he seeks to have Wikipedia impose. I will add that his overly combative, exceedingly defensive attitude expressed here, and the snarky remarks he has made to other editors in this discussion, will not stand him in good stead with anyone at all — that's not Wikipedia policy, but pure human nature. As for greatly condensing the content in this article and merging it into the article of the book's author, that seems to be quite reasonable, and I would not oppose this outcome at all. Realkyhick 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge is fine with me. I'm not sure if I would have to check and report on all the literature for the merge to take place (I really don't have time for so large an enterprise), or whether it would be enough to merge the existing article and list the other references mentioned above for people to follow up should they wish. My only purpose here was to see if it was possible to start using Wikipedia to pull together the existing strands of knowledge about Bioaesthetics as a framework for researchers, and I had not realised - if that is the case - that I would need to review the whole literature, or that Project Muse was available for me to do that. When I was asked for evidence of what I claimed in the article - and it IS a description, not a review - then I made the changes I thought had been requested. I expected to make changes, but I had thought people would give constructive criticism rather than try to squash the knowledge it contained. Anyway, I really appreciate the input and help. As Fixer1234 suspects, this was my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia - Ellen Dissanayake has a lot to say about my subject, so I wanted to start with her book - and I was totally astonished, dismayed and discouraged at the reaction I got.
-
-
-
-
- Comment: The whole point of new page patrol is to eliminate poorly written, non referenced or not notable articles as soon as possible. That is the easiest way to find them. I do not understand why people continually post articles that do not cite references and then complain when they are deleted so quickly. Do the research construct, the article in sandbox then post it when it is complete. This would solve these types of issues. @ Wavecreststudios The attacks on Realkyhick are uncalled for. If you look at his history you can see that he edits and deletes articles as they come down the pipe and not by using some Evangelical Wikipedia Search Engine guiding his edits. Helmsb 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The question is why was this article marked for deletion within five minutes of its appearance? As someone totally new to Wikipedia I could have been asked to remove the two value judgements in the article, which would have changed it from a book review into a summary, and summaries, since they add no new information, do not fall within Wikipedia's description of original research, and it would then not have needed to be deleted. Result? Article saved. Regarding the references, it would also have been possible to mark it as requiring references and soliciting people to add them - as, for example, was done on the article "Essays", which has not been marked for removal, by you or anyone else. The question here is why you and the others who leapt into your footsteps, did not choose to do that? This was your first response to a new arriver to Wikipedia, someone attempting to make a useful contribution to his academic field, and to Wikipedia in general. Your first response to me was highly combative, and I have simply defended myself against what I see as a series of destructive criticisms aimed at removal of useful (and existing) information to people in my field. If you would like to explain why you marked this article for removal within five minutes of its appearance instead of attempting to save it, then I am sure we will all be interested to know. As for whether defending myself from destructive, faulty and unreasoned criticism will stand me 'in good stead' with other editors, I am sure they will all make up their own minds. Fixer1234 took a constructive approach, and I am endebted to him for that. The article is better for his intervention, and future articles from me, if I think it is worthwhile trying in future, will be better too. If I alienate combative editors, though, who seek to destroy first contributions that are worthy of being saved, then so be it. If the worst that happens is that they don't help me, then I haven't lost much, have I? Regarding your suggestion of merging the article, I have no problem with that, as I have said, but I would like you to explain your reasons for wanting it 'greatly condensed', and would like to know exactly which features of the article you would like removed. --201.93.232.219 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- I have already listed why it was marked for deletion within five minutes. We don't make a distinction as to whether an article that qualifies for speedy deletion comes from an inexperienced user or a veteran. The call is made based on the article, not the author. Our so-called combative response was in large part based on your own reactions. Now on to how to fix the article: 1) Merge it into a new section of the author's article. 2) Cut each of the sub-sections down to about half their current lengths. I'll leave you to decide what, since you're much more familiar with the subject. 3) Keep all the references, although it would help greatly if you could link them to an online site where they can be found, for verification purposes. (I know that sometimes the smaller journals don't have web sites, so that may not be possible; if not, just leave it as is.) You might even want to include a quote or two from some of those sources to boost the assertion of notability, and make the section more interesting in general. If you're willing to do that, then we would turn this article into a "redirect," which means that someone who types "Homo Aestheticus" into the Search box would be sent to the author's article. Realkyhick 19:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I will work on the merge this weekend, when I get back from a trip. And I'm quite happy for it to be a redirect as you suggest. Will prune it as far as I can, but it may not be to half. Other, possibly, than that, we have a consensus. --201.93.232.219 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC) — 201.93.232.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sounds good. As you may have seen at the top of the discussion, I've requested that this be closed with a consensus for merge and redirect. Realkyhick 04:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- With regard to those who chose to classify this article as ''original research', may I remind them of the definition given in the Wikipedia guide for this subject:
"'Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified)."
- Read the article again - it is purely a summary and therefore not covered by this definition. Or to say it another way "The purpose of original research is to produce new knowledge" There is no new knowledge in this article, it consists of a summary of the book, nothing else. Therefore it is NOT original research.
--201.93.232.219 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)— 201.93.232.219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 22:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cl dav public school
No claim of notability and no context. Keb25 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD A1/A3. --Finngall talk 15:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Keb25 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 06:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's not even clear what this article is about. I look forward to recreation of this article once sufficient information is available. Alansohn 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as NN high school, per nom et al. Bearian 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Harlowraman
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opera South
New, not-yet notable organization - previously deleted[24], and recreated by User:Smitheys1 who appears to be org's general director AUTiger » talk 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
cat=M
- delete - When they get some press coverage, then keep. Or if it exists now, someone could add it? They are in a big city, if they were notable enough, there would be some easily accessed reviews/commentary. --Rocksanddirt 19:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not apear to pass notability. At the very least it would be linked to the city it is in.--Amadscientist 05:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus; default to keep. — Coren (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: non-admin close.
[edit] Cultural depictions of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis
Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. Also, most of the content of this list is not veriafiable and/or overly vague. Mrs. Kennedy is notable, but the cultural depictions are not. Tomj 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like trivia. Anything worth keeping can be merged into main article. It's just going to be a trivia magnet otherwise. --Belovedfreak 14:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:IINFO. If kept, rename to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in popular culture (currently a redirect to this page)--if we're going to keep some of these trivia lists around, let's at least have consistency in naming them. --Finngall talk 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but at the very least rename, since the title does not reflect the contents at all; which are a laundry list of trivia loosely connected to Jackie O. --Haemo 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep While this could stand a good deal of editing, it's not beyond salvaging. It accurately shows the many depictions of "Jackie Kennedy" and "Jackie O", who is undeniably a pop culture figure. Her image (how many of us think of a pink outfit and matching pillbox hat at the mere mention of her name?) became bigger than the person herself. I hope that she's never portrayed in a video game. Mandsford 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and edit. Th nom is using his own peculiar idea of loosely associated--the subject of a depiction is not loosely associated with it. Different let us say photographs of a person are closely associated. Different films, books, songs, etc about a person of principally inspired by a person are tightly, not loosely associated. Thats the way encyclopedias are made--my collecting information associated with subjects. DGG (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep and edit. We must make it more similar to the article about cultural depictions of Anne Frank, with more verified and reliable sources. Bryan Seecrets 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis article. Harlowraman 23:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Allen Central High School
School fails WP:ORG due to lack of substantial independent coverage. The article has existed since August 2006, has seen a lot of "funny" unsourced content, and survived a PROD, but notability is still not established. Sources given are not independent, or not reliable (one seems to be a private page). So, I suppose, notability will never be established. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 15:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I seem to recall a default consensus that all high schools are notable enough. --Rocksanddirt 19:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep High school = notable. LukeHoC 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a policy or guideline saying that all high schools are notable. WP:ORG requires secondary sources, and none have been given for this school. --B. Wolterding 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All high schools are notable, as I argue here. Noroton 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A Google search of the school's name, and especially a Google News Archives search shows that it is very notable for its controversial use of the Confederate flag (or incorporation of it into some school symbol) and for some kind of school mascot involving a Confederate soldier. Unfortunately, nearly all articles about the controversy are behind subscription/archive walls, including articles in the Floyd County Times for instance, here] (which you may need to register for in order to even see the archive listing page). Both the Louisville Courrier and the Lexington Herald-Leader (which seem to be the top newspapers in Kentucky) have published stories about it. I can't figure out whether or not the Board of Education decided to keep or remove the symbols or came to some other decision, if any. Previous versions of the article refer to the controversy. Even if you don't think all high schools are notable, this particular high school is undoubtedly notable. We can verify that with references to the articles that focus on the school. We just can't read more than a few sentences of those articles without paying for them. Without some local person who has access to the news articles, or who is willing to pay for them, the Wikipedia article should be kept, should have a sentence or two referring to what we can confirm about the controversy and should be ready to be filled out by someone who can and will do it.Noroton 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- All right, I found it. Here's your proof of notability, brought to you by The International Herald Tribune here. At the very least, the Associated Press article ran on the newspaper's Web site, but it seems to indicate it also ran in the newspaper itself. Together with the description/excerpts of articles behind the subscription/archive walls, notability is demonstrated and is airtight under anyone's definition of WP:N.Noroton 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep as stated above. It is notable. Marlith T/C 00:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - notable high school involved in controversy and with the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 02:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — No consensus exists on high school notability, but it meets mine. Wash, rinse, repeat. — RJH (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this article. The school is notable. -- DS1953 talk 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Above and beyond the overwhelming precedent for consensus on notability of high schools, this article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Great work on expansion by User:Noroton! Just more evidence of the ample reliable sources available for almost every high school, if one would only take the time to look. Alansohn 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opernturm
Non-notable skyscraper that is still under construction. speedy tag was removed four times by author, they stated they wouldn't remove it again, after which it was removed by an anon. Improbcat 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Improbcat 14:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I fail to see why this is a non-notable building. RandomCritic 14:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tentative keep I don't really know what consensus Wikipedia has come to about the notability of buildings (if any), but it seems to me that one of the tallest buildings in Germany should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if it is not quite completed yet. Deli nk 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Skyscrapers are notable even while they're being built (see Burj Dubai). This will be the 6th tallest building in Germany when completed. --Targeman 14:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, a building this prominent should be easily sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. See also Shard London Bridge, Broadgate Tower, Sabarmati Riverfront Development Project, Louisville Museum Plaza, George W. Bush Presidential Library, Pentominium, and the Super Power Building. wikipediatrix 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep which helps explain why the entirely inappropriate speedy tag kept being removed. This is a major building (558 feet tall) in a major German city, of course it's notable. Nick mallory 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Tag was repeatedly removed by the creator of the article, then after the creator said they would no longer remove it, it was removed by an anon account which only edited that article (making me strongly suspect the creator had logged out then continued to remove tags and edit their article). The speedy deletion tag specifically says for the creator to not remove the tag. Thus the sending to AfD. Improbcat 23:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Matt Gray
Aricle was previously deleted under an expired PROD claiming subject did not meet WP:BIO and was recreated by same user. Subject still does not meet WP:BIO. -- Merope 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jdcooper 14:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Improbcat 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is nothing in the article that indicates that this player meets WP:BIO Deli nk 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted, nonsense. Will also salt. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eleanor Walker
The CSD nonsense tag keeps getting deleted by the creator, and if this carries on the page will never get deleted. Pages exactly this have been deleted before [check the page's deletion history, about 5/6 times!]. RichardΩ612 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and salt. Darksun 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. Jdcooper 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edumate
No independent sources are given for this software; it fails WP:CORP. Some users expressed contrary opinions on the talk page (although their arguments do not sound convincing to me), so I'm sending it here rather than to PROD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Reads more like a promo brochure than an encyclopedia article, no independent sources, not notable, and original author Davidsavill appears to be an executive with the company. [25] --Finngall talk 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete.--Amadscientist 05:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above and as spam. Bearian 01:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was There is no consensus here for deletion. This does not preclude of course; merging, cleaning up, sourcing, and or redirecting.. Navou banter 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of inventions shown on American Inventor
None of the items on the page are notable for their own articles. Grouping a bunch of NN items together does not IMHO suddenly make them notable. The main American Inventor page already lists the finalists for each season, and IMHO that is enough. TexasAndroid 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think listing every single invention could qualify as indiscriminate info. It's best to keep the most notable ones on the American Inventor article. Spellcast 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Move/Clean-up: Change the title to "List of finalists on American Inventor", and list only those. The AI article only lists the Final 4 for S1 and the Final 3 for S2. However, there were 8 that spent 50,000 dollars in S1 and 6 in S2. There would then be only 14 inventions listed in all. Codelyoko193 Talk 14:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rename/Clean-up per Codelyoko193. Slartibartfast (1992) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is useful for those doing research on past seasons of this series. Seriously, what harm is this article doing? Ball of pain 17:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: A lot of the inventions are not worth mentioning as they had no major effect on the series. Codelyoko193 Talk 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe Merge Maybe merge it into the main article? Red Fiona 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Am I allowed to post multiple comments? Anyway, no, because it would take up too much space. Codelyoko193 Talk 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know the series at all so I thought there could just be a paragraph saying 'other inventions included ...'. Sorry Red Fiona 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's OK, didn't mean offence. Codelyoko193 Talk 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: This is exactly what I said when someone brought up making a list of this on the Bulletball AfD. The list fails WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N. I've said this from the start. Douglasr007 09:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. The notable inventions (finalists/winners) of each season should be on the main article only. RobJ1981 10:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep More concise, and no less worthy of an article, than the endless episode guides for Scooby Doo, Buffy, Smallville, etc. The author has a gift for keeping descriptions simple, and for perfecting the list. Mandsford 17:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete.--Amadscientist 05:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep They are here in part because they are not notable enough for their own articles. That is one of the useful purposes of articles like this. show us where it says that everything on a list must be important enough for a separate article. I'm beginning to see what's up--the desire is to remove all mention of things not separately notable--not just all articles about them. It seems obvious to be that in talking about the more important things, you mention the others. DGG (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is useful. It is as useful as lostpedia or any other info on tv shows, maybe one of these will become famous even if we think they were not worthy. Keep for history archives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Momhaydee (talk • contribs).
- Comment I've already stated delete above, but I feel this must be said. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that has ever existed. Imagine having an article on "List of meals shown on 30 Minute Meals". An episode guide does not belong in an encylopedia. I doubt that all these inventions are as notable as each other. If it is notable enough, mention it in the American Inventor page, but there's no need to list every single one. There are no multiple, reliable sources that assert each of these inventions apart from the show itself. Spellcast 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Suggestion The second season final show featured the judges ten favorites from the rejected candidates. Those ten, or perhaps the top five of those ten, could keep the list shorter and not indiscriminate. I love the show, so because I'm so biased, I won't say keep or delete. Here's the list: (10) Howard Batterman with "Finger Tunes", (9) Richard Dessert Jr. and Richard Dessert Sr. with "The Escape Suit", (8) Rose Feller with the "Love Test", (7) Rayfil Wong with "Sober Key", (6) Evan Balasuriya with "Double Chin Buster", (5) Steven Cousineau with "A.C.E. Cycle", (4) John Sparks with "EZ Squeeze Ear Plugs", (3) David Le with "Helmet/Shoulder Pads", (2) Carlo Giancanti with "Copper Gear" and (1) Silvio DiSalvatore with "Black Cougar". --User101010 10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep- I was flicking through AfDs..dull, dull, dull, dull...and then finally this one that is actually interesting! - I read the whole page. Aatomic1 14:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Week Keep needs to sourced better. Harlowraman 22:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, simply a content fork from the main article. Sr13 is almost Singularity 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tupac Shakur filmography
Obsolete page that does not add much to what Tupac Shakur#Filmography already has. This is not extensive enough to warrant its own article, like say Robert De Niro filmography. A very similiar afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cent filmography, resulted in a delete. Spellcast 13:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and don't forget the redirect, Tupac Shakur Filmography. Spellcast 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Short enough to be included in main article. Epbr123 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree, not long enough to be its own article. Doesn't contain anything that is not/ could not be in main article. --Belovedfreak 15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this and merge back into main article. Lugnuts 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need to merge this. The table in the main article is the standard format for filmographies. The "description" row explains what the film is about and that should simply be kept in the film page. Spellcast 13:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mike Cash
Article about a musician that was originally tagged as speedy until an independent editor removed the tag. Assertion of notability or not, I believe the subject does not meet the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. CIreland 12:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no sources. Members of bands that appear to be notable within its own highschool -- Whpq 12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Jdcooper 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 13:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Keb25 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Unsourced teenage vaninanity. --Finngall talk 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kelly Madison
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Keep Nomination withdrawn, per AnonEMouse. Epbr123 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Runs a notable Internet site, has been featured in many magazines. I also take into account the fact this article survived a previous AFD only a few months ago, and the statements made in support then still apply now. Sometimes I wonder if those who nominate articles for AFD ever look at the previous nominations. 23skidoo 13:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- So how does she pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:V or WP:N? If you had read the previous nomination, you'd have noticed that I was actually quite involved with it. My arguments from that afd are still valid, and the WP:PORNBIO criteria have been modified since then. Epbr123 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, coverage in Adult Industry News, plus column in Juggs together constitute inclusion per #5 in WP:PORNBIO#Valid Criteria. Pending clean-up perhaps, which I will have a go at now. Jdcooper 13:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Besides her other work, she has a column in a well known industry publication. Are we going to rehash the same AFDs every six months when the WP:PORNBIO criteria are tweaked? Perhaps Mike Royko will go up for AFD now... Dismas|(talk) 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- That wasn't part of the WP:PORNBIO criteria then, and still isn't. Juggs is barely notable, let alone its columnists. Epbr123 15:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable for her column in Juggs, as well as an (apparently) notable website). --Belovedfreak 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable per WP:PORNBIO. Could use some more sources and some cleanup, though - but what article doesn't?. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- She is not notable per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- You need to do rather better than just claim she isn't, although the fact that you have a large "Articles I Have Deleted" section on your user page almost exclusively devoted to porn stars could certainly lead someone to draw conclusions. In any event, with nearly 270,000 Google hits and over seven hundred unique hits (by contrast, "United States" has only nine hundred), Madison overwhelmingly satisfies WP:BIO's criterion of "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Chalk me up for a Strong Keep. RGTraynor 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have already countered every argument here asserting her notability. To counter your's, WP:PORNBIO states "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)". Next. Epbr123 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- You haven't "countered" a thing. "No, that source doesn't count" or "No, she isn't notable" are assertions, not evidence. RGTraynor 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- →Speedy Keep- apparently, only the nominator does not believe that she meets WP:PORNBIO. --Boricuaeddie 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to change my mind if someone tells me which WP:PORNBIO criteria she passes. Epbr123 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the community believes she is notable for her column in Juggs, as well as a notable website. Since only you disagree with the rest of the community, then this is a speedy keep. --Boricuaeddie 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- If the community believes that, that's fine. Having a website such as pornfidelity.com and being a columnist in a magazine such as Juggs will now have to be incorperated into the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 22:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the community believes she is notable for her column in Juggs, as well as a notable website. Since only you disagree with the rest of the community, then this is a speedy keep. --Boricuaeddie 21:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to change my mind if someone tells me which WP:PORNBIO criteria she passes. Epbr123 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and because I've read WP:PORNBIO, and aside from a lot of google hits (which are a fail), nothing passing. spazure (contribs) 09:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I've added a few sources and expanded the article about 3-fold. There are even more to add, and there is more editing to do, but hopefully by looking at the new version people can see that there is at least the germ of something interesting here. She passes WP:N the classic way, being the subject of multiple non-trivial independent articles. Besides that, she's recently been on a non-porn national cable program. She seems to be a rather impressive internet entrepreneur, actually, some of the articles are quite interesting. Being the cousin of Janine Lindemulder, nominated for the 2007 F.A.M.E. awards, and having a rather romantic life story (well, as romantic as can lead to a porn career), aren't qualifiers, but don't hurt. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per AnonEMouse. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted all as promo-material. Pascal.Tesson 17:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Great Chicken Wing Hunt
- Great Chicken Wing Hunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Chicken wing hunt (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Matt Reynolds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
These three articles have been created about a search for great chicken wings that will apparently be the subject of a documentary. The external links suggest that this is at best a local event and doesn't rise to the level of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps if the documentary is made and released to the public, there will be some notability then. But as of now, WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Deli nk 12:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. I notice one of the articles was already deleted, and was recreated with the notice 'The event/docu film seem a veritable piece of art/pop culture reflecting the tendency for ever smaller sub-cultures in American life'. Per WP:CRYSTAL, I don't see how this is possible. Upcoming films are only notable if the production itself is notable and underway, and this is not the case. As for the author, no third party articles indicate inclusion per WP:BIO. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all but only after I find the best chicken wings in my neighborhood from the article. KP Botany 23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. And I already know where the best chicken wings in my area are, they're at KFC. Or at least those are the only chicken wings in my area. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sympathy card Oh, I'm so sorry. Do otters eat chicken wings, though?KP Botany 20:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Chicken wing hunt, this is pure G11 material. hbdragon88 01:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No context or source is provided, so there's no assurance that this isn't junk content, and there's too little to bother with merging. Cool Hand Luke 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dristikon
Non-notable event of an institution. Keb25 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: unref'd, nonnotable, no context. Shalom Hello 12:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no claim of notability. Deli nk 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as whatisit? Bearian 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Army Institute of Management, Kolkata and redirect. --Busy Stubber 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Big Screen Network Productions
Blatant advertising Joedoedoe 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Re-write or Delete It seems to be a notable company but it's just such a blatant ad.--St.daniel Talk 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - This may not work for some but the standard I use is wording, references, external links and article links. Wording reads like a pamplet. No references. All external links lead to company website. Article not linked to any other article.--Amadscientist 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Changelings in popular culture
"Hey look, it changes shape!" Unacceptable trivia collection, per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO. All important aspects are already covered by the main article. Eyrian 16:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, merging any actual relevant examples to changeling. This is a theme from traditional folklore and folk narratives, and so popular culture examples are quite useful and belong in the article in chief. The "semantic drift" business that muddies the notions of changelings and shapeshifters does not belong, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I have attempted to begin the process of re-integrating the most salient material into the article in chief. The instant text here should be moved to a subpage of the talk page per Wikipedia:Subpages for further revision and reference. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back into Changeling, while removing any references that merely use the word "changeling" without actually referring to folkloric changelings.RandomCritic 14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as trivia. Anything useful/relevant/sourced can be added to Changelings article. --Belovedfreak 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and please don't merge back. Bulldog123 15:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and do not merge. One of the most indiscriminate collection of info lists I've seen yet. Unsourced, trivial, and many examples are borderline OR. I see the words "possibly" and "indicates," which are dead giveaways. Even if cleaned up, however, this list is hopeless; take away all minor mentions of Changelings or any poem/work that happens to have a changeling character, and we'd be left with two or three notable items that better belong as short, succinct references in the main article. Wipe the slate clean and begin again, this time with reliable sources. María (críticame) 16:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per the above. This is one of the worst examples of these types of pages. The sheer number of inferential "possible" mentions is astounding, and only serves to highlight the trivial nature of the page. --Haemo 22:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- Commenters might want to re-view the list and see if it still qualifies as "hopeless". The number of works with a main character who is a changeling, and where the changelingness is plot-central, is actually far from insignificant when the cruft is deleted. RandomCritic 03:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As the useful content has already been merged into Changeling, there's no point in keeping this article (except maybe for the usual GFDL issues, but I leave that to others). Rl 17:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge (although as R1 points out, this has probably already been done). Since there aren't that many folklore stories about changelings, this pop culture list can go back to the original article. Mandsford 18:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. There are some conflicting sources but in analyzing them, it seems apparent that he was an artist from the former USSR, wounded in battle a couple of times and lost his family in the Holocaust, but what distinguishes him (and notably absent from his biography although the sources are there) is his arts career. He exhibited at the National Gallery of Moscow, possibly but probably not at the NY Met or Tate (a possible confusion between where he exhibited and where he was a member of the gallery's society, but perhaps a temporary exhibition may have included his works, but all this is unsourced). Given that, and the divergent opinions expressed below, there is no consensus to delete this article. Carlossuarez46 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hendel Lieberman
While this person may have been very righteous in his own right, it is hard to fathom why there should be a "biography" about him on Wikikipedia. He is neither a famous personality nor a famous artist as the article tendentiously claims. Violates WP:NN and does not meet the standards for WP:BIO. IZAK 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for above reasons. IZAK 13:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 15:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless some reason of notability is provided. Jon513 16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Tom 17:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep The article lists a couple non-trivial sources about him. These say that "Lieberman exhibited in galleries and Chassidic communities around the world, from New York to Australia," "His paintings were exhibited in the National Gallery of Moscow, the famed Tretyakov, and the regional Museum of Kabaharosyk, a major city in Eastern Siberia," and "He has had major exhibitions in Australia, Michigan, Israel, Miami, and Seattle. Major museums in New York, London, and Paris have made his paintings part of their permanent collections." This indicates sufficient notability to me. However, I'm making my vote weak because I'm unsure of the quality of the sources. nadav (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per Nadav. One 11:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of notability and references/sources to substantiate the article. Ozgod 12:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Jdcooper 14:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 14:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Hillock65 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep there is a book about him, from which more details can be added, but I haven't got it. That might also have a bibliography with any printed articles that aren't on the web. I'll try to get hold of the book, but it won't happen in the next week. He's famous in Lubavitch at least; and in his day he was well known in the NYC art world. How known he is outside Lubavitch, or in the art world 30+ years after his death, I don't know. Zsero 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if sourced; from the external link [26], a reprint from t he Yiddishe Heim.: "New York's art community also fully accepted Hendel. Widely respected among artists, he belonged to the artist-society of the Museum of Modern Art, and his paintings hang today at New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, London's Tate Gallery and art museums in Paris. " If this can be verified elsewhere, he is unquestionably notable as an artist, quite in addition to other factors. There may be some name variation, and there are other figures in modern art named Lieberman, so I out of my depth here. DGG (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, he is notable enough as an artist, w/work exhibited in some of the great museums. Article just needs better sourcing. --MPerel 19:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above discussion, esp. DGG. Bearian 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom ,WP:NN.--Miamite 03:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --DLandTALK 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Loughborough Students' Union
not even a school, it's a non notable organizaiton in the school, apparently written by the students themselbes, with few good references. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. See Category:English students' unions. Student Unions clearly can be notable. If this article has problems, it should be improved, not deleted. The use of local terminology would help. It is not a school. It is the student union of a well established university. The UK does not use the term "school" for universities. --Bduke 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Schools, which include universities, inherently carry some notability. Student unions, do not. Every single university has them, sometimes many. My undergraduate alma mater, Florida State University, has the Oglesby Student Union. It also has the Black Student Union, the Jewish Student Union, the Catholic Student Union, the Asian-American Student Union, etc. ad nauseum. Student unions by themselves are non notable, and this one is not. The university by itself may be fine, but the union has no notability to establish itself. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then the Student Unions in Florida are very different bodies from those in the UK. UK universities have one student union, to which all students in the university belong. The only university that has several student unions (see the category I gave above) is the University of London, where the very large colleges, that act as separate universities in many ways, have their own student unions. The student union is the body that sponsors all other student societies, usually including all student sports clubs. I know something of US universities and I do not think experience there is helpful in understanding the situation in UK universities. --Bduke 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That still doesn't establish that the Student Union is notable, only that the school is notable. The fact is, many of those articles consist of nothing but a list of the sabbatical members of the Union, and what bars and restaurants the union owns. That's not encyclopedic knowledge. Wikipedia is not an advertising source, nor is it an educational directory of university organizations. Notable ones, yes, but not this. By your comparison, then, UK student associations are equivalent to US Student Bodies or Student Senate Constituency. Almost none of those have articles. NUS deserves an article as a notable organization. A few of the unions in there have claims to notability, i.e. the one that was around from 1874 and had Freemason connections, or the one where it had a president arrested for pedophilia scandals, etc. The vast majority, including this one, have absolutely no notability whatsoever. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I wrote has nothing to do with the notability of the University. In the UK, the student unions are the most notable of all student organisations. This Union is most likely notable. There will be lots of verifiable reliable sources. They need providing from someone who knows where they are. This union covers more than the university. That is unusual. The turnover is 2 million pounds. There will be sources. I now leave it for others to find them. Like you I am a long way from Loughborough, although I do know about UK universities having studied and taught in them (not this one). --Bduke 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That still doesn't establish that the Student Union is notable, only that the school is notable. The fact is, many of those articles consist of nothing but a list of the sabbatical members of the Union, and what bars and restaurants the union owns. That's not encyclopedic knowledge. Wikipedia is not an advertising source, nor is it an educational directory of university organizations. Notable ones, yes, but not this. By your comparison, then, UK student associations are equivalent to US Student Bodies or Student Senate Constituency. Almost none of those have articles. NUS deserves an article as a notable organization. A few of the unions in there have claims to notability, i.e. the one that was around from 1874 and had Freemason connections, or the one where it had a president arrested for pedophilia scandals, etc. The vast majority, including this one, have absolutely no notability whatsoever. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then the Student Unions in Florida are very different bodies from those in the UK. UK universities have one student union, to which all students in the university belong. The only university that has several student unions (see the category I gave above) is the University of London, where the very large colleges, that act as separate universities in many ways, have their own student unions. The student union is the body that sponsors all other student societies, usually including all student sports clubs. I know something of US universities and I do not think experience there is helpful in understanding the situation in UK universities. --Bduke 05:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable organization and venue, no real rationale given for deletion. LSU is an organization with members from 3 educational establishments, not an 'organization in the school'. It could use more references but that's not a reason to delete it.--Michig 07:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's not a school it's a university. The union is notable for being the only[citation needed] student union in the UK that owns it's own student union building rather than leasing space from the university. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. LSU is indeed a notable organisation. it bosts may unique achievments that no other organisation can speak of.
- It is the only students union to represent three organisations, the university, local colledge, and Royal National Institute for the Blind.
- it has the largest charitable fundraising total of any union in the country. [1]
- its radio station is responsible for helping launch and entire genre of music back in the 80's.[2]
- They have won the british university sporting association cup for 29 years running,leaving all other unions in thier wake.[3]
- They are the most ethical and environmentally freindly organisation of its type, having won many national awards in this feild. including the green gown award [4], the best bar none award [5] and the sound impact award[6].
- They Have achieved the higest score in student satisfaction in the national student survey last year proving the outstanding level of support for its community. [7]
- The ONLY union to be owned by its Student members.
- having the oldest student cinema in the country with several hundred capacity[8] (an acheivemnt in the UK).
- being one of the biggest performance venues in leicstershire.
not to mention a host of othe acheivents to unique and numorous to mention here.Spanmandoo 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve Students' unions in the UK are separate entities not "organisations in the school". Also they are formalised - it is very different from Florida where "students' union" is getting attached to what sound like little more than student societies. Bduke has put it well. Timrollpickering 12:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bduke and Spanmandoo. This is not an after-school class. Jdcooper 14:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, inherently notable. RandomCritic 14:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Spanmandoo (seems to have plenty of notability) and improve. --Belovedfreak 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Student Unions (in the sense that is used in the UK) are notable organisations. Individual societies such as the ones described above may not be, but should be decided on a case by case basis. --Darksun 16:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - notable. -- KTC 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There seems to be some cross-Atlantic mis-understanding of what a UK Student's Union is. Red Fiona 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's not a valid deletion/keep reason. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, the nomination is valid on its face, namely that the organization's notability is not demonstrated by use of third-party references. This is a significant concern, and not addressed by simply saying the nominator is mistaken, but rather by improving the article. FrozenPurpleCube 21:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Notes
- ^ LBoroSU | Home Page
- ^ https://www.lcr1350.co.uk
- ^ BUSA Action - BUSA
- ^ http://www.heepi.org.uk/green%20gown%202006-7/times%20higher%20ad.pdf
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_Bar_None
- ^ Students’ Unions receive Sound Impact Awards for being green | New Consumer
- ^ The National Student Survey
- ^ Flix: Loughborough Students Cinema :: Information
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- KTC 17:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that the people commenting here would be well-advised to consider the standards for notability at WP:ORG. The best way to assert an organization's notability is by adding sources about it, preferably third-party ones from reputable places. So far the only third-party source currently in the article is one about a shooting. Which is hardly significant coverage of the organization itself. I would also point out that the existence of other articles about student unions is a poor argument. Most of those articles are not in a good state, and some are in quite poor state. If you want to see examples of organizations where notability is well-established, try Skull and Bones or possibly Oxford Union. OTOH, looking at the various student organizations with articles (both in the UK and the US, probably other countries as well), I see a lot which probably should be carefully examined. FrozenPurpleCube 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I agree that those who edit articles on Student Unions need a wake up call to add sources and keep them at a NPOV. However, I do not think deletion of articles on major student unions is a good idea. Some of the smaller ones could be merged. However Loughborough is a major university with a union that covers other institutions in the city. Student unions covering whole universities in the UK and Australia, where I now live, are more notable than any high school due to the number of members, number of employees and total revenue. However, if people who have access to the sources do not look for them and add them to the articles, we will have to revisit this in the future. I would point out in passing that Skull and Bones ond Oxford Union are not student unions. The Oxford Union is a debating society with club rooms. --Bduke 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I didn't include those pages because I thought they were student unions, but rather because they were organizations associated with colleges that demonstrated notability. Student Unions as a whole really aren't showing that much wider notability to me. Mention in the article on the university and college? Sure, go ahead, that's reasonably valid. Articles on their own? I'm still quite highly doubtful. And this applies to colleges in the UK, Australia, the US, Canada, and anywhere else. Especially when silly stuff like owning a building is used to justify inclusion. Owning a building may matter if it's covered in other sources, like say [27] Rice University getting a bit of ownership of Yankee Stadium, but I've seen nothing to indicate that's the case here. And you may not have noticed, but there's a LOT of student-related organizations with questionable articles on Wikipedia. I've looked through Category:Student societies by country, and I'm highly doubtful about the vast majority of them. FrozenPurpleCube 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note, by the way, I'm not limiting my concerns just to Student unions, but any college-affiliated organizations. FrozenPurpleCube 23:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, we just have different opinions. I looked at the UK, Australia and New Zealand categories and I saw a lot of articles that to me are clearly about notable organisations. Whether they demonstrate it in the article is another matter, but to me they clearly could. There are a minority that may not be notable and I have nominated one to AfD. Since the majority of us are or have been students, we often have false modesty and down grade the notability of university organisations and people, while we have no problem about some one who played 5 games of professional football. However this general discussion really should be somewhere else. --Bduke 00:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I don't know about you, but for me, it has nothing to do with modesty or my personal feelings about the organizations. And I do have problems with some of the standards for pro-sports, though I think the comparable level in these cases is more like having the guy who drives the team bus with an article. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep While I might have closed this as no consensus, the article contains some good references. Obviously OR should be removed if possible, but that can be dealt with separately by editing. Assertions that all articles of the form "_ in popular culture" by nature violate Wikipedia policy have been discounted as there is no consensus that that is the case. Pharmboy makes a good point about possible renaming. JoshuaZ 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Phoenix in popular culture
Long list of trivial references. The referenced examples of antiquity have nothing but the fact that they are mentioned. No further understanding or analysis, all of which is contained in phoenix's already excellent sections on the myth and usage. Delete as an unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO). Eyrian 16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyrian (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 16:23:35
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Previous debates at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture shows that most articles were deleted, merged, or redirected. We have WP:ATRIV for a reason, so delete this along with all the other trivia pages in Category:In popular culture. Last time I checked, there was over 120 "in popular culture articles", now there's 93. Spellcast 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very selectively merge relevant data in the article in chief on Phoenix (mythology). The Shakespearean references surely belong, as do the uses of the phoenix as allegorical figures or heraldic or national emblems. And, in all likelihood, the Harry Potter version is inescapable. As a figure from mythology and folklore, it is of the nature of the phoenix to reappear under various guises throughout history. Figures such as this do not need separate "in popular culture" articles, as much as they need to not disparage more recent appearances. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A research-relevant list unfairly targeted because of the words "popular culture" in the title. RandomCritic 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename "in popular culture" isn't correct for the article anyway, as it covers more than just 'popular culture'. Change to "Historical use of the phoenix as a symbal" or something shorter to that effect. Is referenced and wikilinked well, and is actually an interesting and well compiled article. Agree with RandomCritic that it may have got tossed in due to the naming. Pharmboy 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep One of the few pop culture articles that seems to stay focused, with sufficient information for each reinterpretation of the legend of the Phoenix. Mandsford 18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Selective merge per Ihcoyc/Smerdis/whatever. Some of these pop culture references are notable (e.g. the city in Arizona, ditto the Shakespeare, Rowling, etc. references. Some are just trivial and should go. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is clearly no consensus that WP:FIVE and WP:NOT#IINFO says that we must delete all "in popular culture" articles, which is what the nominators for the deletion of this and many other similar articles seem to be implying. This lack of consensus is evidenced by the fact that WP:NOT (which is supposed to reflect consensus policy) says nothing about trivia or "in popular culture" articles. Also, WP:ATRIV says nothing about deleting articles such as this; on the contrary, it says things like "Do not simply remove such sections: it may be possible to integrate some items ..."; "Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists ..." There has been for a long time, however, WP:CONSENSUS, evident by the number of such articles, the number of editors who have created and contributed to such articles, and how long they have been around, that these articles should exist. The present pop-culture deletion campaign, which has been successful to some extent, might represent a change in consensus, however, without a wider discussion than AfD, this cannot be determined. "No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined." Perhaps a wider discussion will reveal a consensus that these articles don't belong in Wikipedia; however, they ought to exist somewhere, otherwise Wikipedia will be a perpetual battleground between those who want access to and to contribute to this information, and those who want to get rid of it. A reasonable compromise might be to create a new Wikimedia project (on par with Wikibooks and Wikiquote) to host these types of articles, but until then, these articles ought to be kept here, per WP:IAR, and improved to better comply with Wikipedia policies. DHowell 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per AndyJones and DHowell, it is requirement that AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve. Mathmo Talk 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge — no true importance is shown from sources; it's just a subarticle listing appearances. Besides, this list format is the poorest way to handle this type of article. — Deckiller 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, promo. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wizdom Web
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi (talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 20:13:11
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-neutral, promotional advertising. I suspect a WP:COI by the major author of this article, Dipaq (talk · contribs). Shalom Hello 12:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional article. Keb25 15:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable as presently written. Will reconsider if this changes. --A. B. (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Fort Benning. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] God Bless Fort Benning
Non-notable local event. A redirect to Fort Benning and a note in that article would probably be acceptable. -- RHaworth 10:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Fort Benning. Insufficent verifiable information for a stand alone article. Pedro | Chat 10:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Redirect to Fort Benning. The article clearly does not have enough information or sources to stand on its own. There's no need to continue this discussion. --Boricuaeddie 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bro. Michael Dimond
prod contested for no reason (at least no reason given) I prod'd because I find no notability listed in the article. Millions of people have "founded" websites. Myself - I have about 5 of them. But I know I am notable for that. If this particular website is notable, and by inference it's founder, no one has said so in the article, which is where it should be said. Information on why someone is notable should not be inferred but shared with everyone in the article, which is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Postcard Cathy 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- DO NOT DELETE. He is well known in Catholic circles. Just cause you don't like someone does not mean removed the article. Josef Stalin has his own article.
- Delete The article does not assert the subjects notability, nor does it provide any sources or references with which to support the article with. Ozgod 12:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I checked on this spelling and the alternative "Diamond". Coverage (outside Dimond's/Diamond's website) is mainly blogs and message boards, and most of that is on his anti-papalist (and, therefore, to some, anti-Catholic) works. Not really notable in the secular or nonsecular community. I suggest the article on his "monastery" be put up for deletion as well.--Sethacus 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, and because Wikipedia is not a tract table. Bearian 01:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW and well done to Edison for his improvements. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Panty raid
This article has never had any reliable sources. Most of the content is a "popular culture" section, most of which appears to be original research. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. While the article is in very poor condition, articles that have intrinsically notable topics should not be deleted but edited up to spec. RandomCritic 14:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep While this article could use cleanup, the terminology has reached sufficiently widespread acceptance to pass WP:NEO (per a cursory news article search and aforementioned pop culture citations), and passes WP:WINAD by offering more than a simple definition. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. --Finngall talk 16:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Agree with above. 345th 17:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Added four references to panty raids from Time magazine, from 1952 through 1962. I could not find a detailed timeline of demise of the fad. Campus papers would be a good and proper source, given that references such as Time establish the notability. (O.R. warning: I was at a large college during the last panty raid one spring and the first anti-Vietnam War protest the following spring. The atmosphere and mood seemed remarkably similar. There is probably a published reference to that somewhere. Maybe panty raids started up again after the Vietnam War, but with guys and girls in adjoining rooms of the dorm and few rules against cohabitation, it would seem rather pointless). Anything unreferenced from a "popular culture" section could be tagged as such and then edited out after a decent interval. Edison 17:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Edison has established notability of the term. Hut 8.5 17:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notable fad term still used today as analogy. Excellent WP:HEY work by Edison. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Snowball keep per Edison's additions. Good work Edison! Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep dumb but notable bit of culture. One of the extremely few genuinely notable things made up in school one day. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. If at some point it's no longer a WP:CRYSTAL violation and there's more meat on the bones than it's planned for (some unnamed date in) 2008, it may be appropriate but now it's pure speculation Carlossuarez46 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fflam
Disclaimer: I nominated this article for deletion last time, too. Telsa (talk)
- Delete: this was supposed to be a music festival in Swansea. It never happened. Why should it have an article? Telsa (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable. Reinistalk 08:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the event is reorganised and can be shown as notable – Tivedshambo (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Change to Keep - the official website [28] makes it clear that it will be running next year, and with acts like Manic Street Preachers (who are so notable even I've heard of them!) it is clearly notable. Therefore keep, as per original AfD – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- What you're looking at is the update from July (when they said the weather forecast was too bad, so they were postponing.) They have released the cancellation announcement, but they haven't updated their website. The Fflam website has claimed "upcoming", "to be announced", "real soon now", "no, don't cancel, we're really happening", "we'll announce something about the camping soon", "next week", "by the end of the month", "as soon as we can confirm", "we can't tell you yet", "but it will be worth the wait" about practically everything to do with this festival since its inception: this ranges from who the bands will be, which bands have actually confirmed, whether there will be camping, where there will be camping, whether there will be day tickets, children's tickets, parking, or even refunds ever since the thing was announced. I don't think that website remotely qualifies as a reliable source, and I don't think Wikipedia should be used as free advertising.
-
- I think this is a textbook example of why Wikipedia articles should describe only what's already happened and not what is claimed to happen; and of why sources other than the publicists should be preferred. Other sources do exist, incidentally: if you have some time to spare, you could browse the discussion off-site about it, which is 90-odd pages of "so, um, has anyone heard anything definite?" and "is this happening?" or go to the local paper website and type "Fflam" into the search engine. I suspect the inquest will run and run, but I still don't think that a festival which didn't happen is notable.
-
-
- It is also on BBC News website from 3 August - see [29] – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
Do we really need articles on music festivals that were supposed to happen, then were postponed, then were canceled, now might be rescheduled for next year? Seems like glaring speculation and completely non-notable.Falard 00:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Worthy of an article if they actually make some plans to hold it again. malatesta 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, this currently says "music event, was cancelled, is now scheduled for *sometime* in 2008". That's not an article. WP:CRYSTAL. We can recreate this when more information becomes known about the event. Melsaran 11:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kim Iljae
The current version of the article is unsupported by reliable Chinese historical sources (e.g., the Book of Han) and, frankly, is entirely fantastical. The current style of the article also violates WP:V and WP:MOS-ZH (and mildly violates WP:MOS-KO, as, based on both of those style manuals, the article should be named Jin Ridi) and is unsalvageable. (I also find it distressing that the user who created this article, Kprideboi (talk · contribs), has been similarly disregarding WP:V and WP:MOS-ZH on many articles that he has written lately, although this one is particularly egregious since this person was a clearly established Chinese historical personality on whom a fantastical account is being presented as being factual.) Moreover, the version of the events plainly also conflicts with the more reliable datings of both Gaya Confederacy and Silla, as given by those articles (and those dates are clealry not written by Chinese editors). Delete. --Nlu (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Violations of a style guide are not grounds for deletion. I suggest nominator edit the article to address nominator's concerns. RandomCritic 14:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- As discussed above, the article is in such a wacky state that there's really nothing to edit from that would address these concerns, other than to start over. It would be like if someone invented an origin for Bill Clinton where he was a descendant of DeWitt Clinton and then wrote an entire article on DeWitt Clinton on that invented origin. --Nlu (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep if subject is really "a clearly established Chinese historical personality" as nominator states, and improve. --Belovedfreak 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and speedy close. There is no rationale for deletion here. Please follow recommended dispute resolution procedures. AFD is not for solving content disputes. --Dhartung | Talk 19:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep The subject is said by the nominator to be "...a clearly established Chinese historical personality..." so notability is asserted. The issue seems to be one of editing so fix it not bring it to AfD. --Malcolmxl5 22:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep as explained above, anyway WP:SNOW is happening here.--JForget 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rewrite and Move to Jin Midi (that was how I was told to pronounce his name, though I can't find a source for that at the moment...). The solution, I suppose, is not deletion. _dk 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] M. Amelie von Herzberg
Notability of this person is not established by the article; googling his name only returns 2 hits, both to this article. EyeSereneTALK 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete there is a Herzberg Stiftung (Foundation) but, according to its website (herzberg.org), its founder is a man named Fritz Wartenweiler. Bigdaddy1981 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. Probable COI issues as the author may be/have been a colleague of the subject. The Herzberg Foundation article, also by this same author, was deleted.--Sethacus 08:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There are no references to support him, nor is there any link or reference provided to assert the existence of his foundation. Does not meet the requirements in WP:Notability Ozgod 12:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of sources makes it impossible to verify. --Belovedfreak 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Bearian 01:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Halloween II (Remake)
Delete. See WP:CRYSTAL. There's next to nothing known about this film, save that some of the actors are signed on and that Rob Zombie isn't going to do it. That's hardly enough information to constitute an article, especially since they probably won't make one if the first one doesn't do too well. CyberGhostface 02:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - not a crystal ball but seems alright to me. Onnaghar (Talk) 21:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- All we know is that some of the actors are signed on for a possible sequel. We don't know what the title is, or if it is even going to be made. It all depends on whether or not the first film is succesful enough. All of the valid information could easily be referenced in less than a paragraph on the main article.--CyberGhostface 21:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Crystal ball. The first one isn't even due to come out until later this month. There's no evidence to support what's presented here. It also smacks of BS. The article claims that Sydney Pollack has signed on to direct, (on a side note, that would be a bizarre note to his career), however, there is absolutely zero to indicate that this ever took place.--Sethacus 08:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough of official info provided by the movie.--JForget 23:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable sources can be added to verify that this is in the works. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning (film)
Delete. See WP:CRYSTAL. No sources at all to suggest that this film is even being made. Is probably a mixture of wishful thinking and speculation. (Note: this is not to be confused with The Hills Have Eyes: The Beginning which is a legit graphic novel) CyberGhostface 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: If this article is deleted, it must also be removed from Template:The Hills Have Eyes. ●DanMS • Talk 04:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - pure speculation. EyeSereneTALK 08:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Crystalballery.--Sethacus 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, there shouldn't be an issue on the template, as all evidence points that this film was never listed on it, only the book. -- Jelly Soup 07:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, it was there originally.--CyberGhostface 22:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bouncing Off Clouds
The article says it itself really. "It is considered to be the second single from her album American Doll Posse." - fails WP:CRYSTAL Giggy UCP 07:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Pisceandreams' edits. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm a little confused... according to the sources cited, this has already been released as a single in Poland and is on the charts there. So while it's WP:CRYSTAL for the USA and UK and other countries, it technically has been released as a single. Perhaps if the article were rewritten to give mention only of the countries where it's already been released? Eliz81(talk)(contribs) - Comment This has, in fact, been released as the initial single in Europe for the album American Doll Posse. I will look for citations to add to this article to prove it. Pisceandreams(talk)(contribs) 19:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, it's charting in other countries and it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why it is WP:CRYSTAL when it is not released in the US but is released in Europe?--JForget 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Royall VR Marketing
Non-notable marketing company bobanny 07:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No claims/sources attesting to notability provided, or found in a Google search. Fails WP:COMPANY. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing found in a Google search. I agree with Eliz81, as of August 2007 this article fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sienar Fleet Systems
Similar to this AfD: notable in fictional universe, but no real-world notability. Lacks citations, and appears (although hard to tell because of lack of citations) to repeat in-universe plot summary from the Star Wars expanded universe. More appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:FICTION asks us to develop articles with an out-of-universe perspective, and WP:NOTABILITY demands that we only print things which have significance. This article does little to further either cause. Consequentially 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the first sentence is not enough to satisfy WP:NOT#PLOT, but this is perhaps more a copyedit than a delete. More importantly the article fails WP:ATT and does not establish notability. EyeSereneTALK 08:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge selectively with whatever article deals with SW spaceships. RandomCritic 14:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No real world notability established anywhere. Purely in-universe content Corpx 05:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non admin closure. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The French Connection (hockey)
This is an article of a group of hockey players. The players have no significant notability aside from the fact that they were All-Stars/Hall of Famers. This notability isn't related to the fact that they actually played together; they would have same stats no matter if they played together or not. They just happened to play together. Should Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz have a special article just about them together because they are two teammates who have had great success? Ksy92003(talk) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Aside from the fact that they played together in the NHL? For the better part of a decade? To my mind all sports is a bunch of otherwise non-notable people who play together. Speciate 07:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Non-notable?! One is a Hall of Famer and the other two All-stars. Not quite as famous a nickname as Murderers' Row, but it's well known to hockey fans. Clarityfiend 07:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that the players aren't notable... okay, I did, but that's not how I meant it... I re-worded it above. Ksy92003(talk) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's pretty clear that this group of players was perceived as an entity by sports commentators at the time. People may turn to Wikipedia to decipher this oft-used term, which is difficult to research because of the loose association of the players through time and the confounding effects of the French Connection film. Speciate 07:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per the reasoning above. -- Talk 07:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as the nominating editor for their recent WP:GA promotion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Is there any way I can drop my AfD? I don't think it should be deleted, either. Ksy92003(talk) 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Eating a grounder
Non-notable (and absolutely vile) sexual slang. Google yields five hits, two from Urban Dictionary, two from Answers.com, and one from what I think is a gay porn site. I'm afraid to open it and find out, but that doesn't change that this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Consequentially 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and salt WP:NEO And I know Wikipedia is uncensored but please get this out of here ASAP, it is disgusting, in fact I think I would classify this as Vandalism and tag it for Speedy. Gorkymalorki 06:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete And I don't care if it's sourced or not, neither do I want to read the article. Nick mallory 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Due to a probable hoax. Also, no one is forcing people to read the article, and Wikipedia IS uncensored. Jmlk17 07:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- True but I can't see 'eating a grounder' doing much for Wikipedia's reputation. Nick mallory 10:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Talk 07:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For obvious reasons I will not go Googling from work on the off-chance of finding a source which the nominator missed, but there's no real need as the article contains no assertion that this neologism is notable. Iain99 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What employer allows employees to spend their time at work editing Wikipedia? Edison 17:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment. An awesome one. Consequentially 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Erm, I was just looking up something work-related and must have clicked on "edit" by accident. Honest. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it, OK. Iain99 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Dump it per nom. WP:NEO and no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Flush it per nom. Remind me never to eat again while editing Wikipedia. --Targeman 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The definition on Urban Dictionary is word for word identical to this one, and was added after this article was created. Can't see any other independent sources.--Belovedfreak 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Being grossed out is not a valid deletion argument. See also Coprophilia and Coprophagia. But this is an unsourced neologism, so it can be promptly and speedily deleted on that basis. Edison 17:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply. My argument was primarily the non-notability. When I said "I'm afraid to open it," I was referring to the gay porn site, not the article. Nomination for deletion without reading it? Pft. Consequentially 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete. The article is poorly sourced, and Wikipedia isn't the place for documentation of every sexual fetish that someone comes up with. What's next? An article about sexual gratification through the use of household appliances? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've always found electric kettles pretty hot... --Targeman 16:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. A suicide's not really a claim to notability. Wizardman 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kleb Intermediate School
Another spam article about a non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of what the school's website should be, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No claim of notability whatsoever--Victor falk 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili talk 13:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Vistas High School
- Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep if the following can be sourced"Although at sometimes not having the best reputation, In 2001 A young girl shot herself in one of the school's upstairs restrooms. Local news channel ABC 13 was one of the first to report the incident on it;s newscast speaking to Klein ISD's Superintendent/Spokesperson of Community Relations. Though that incident is in the school's past. Kleb continues to be one of the best Klein ISD Intermediate Campuses Accademically and Organizationally." DGG (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI believe I can source that, DGG, from a police report site; there may be other incidents there as well; if not I may change my vote. -- Naruttebayo 21:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I see the source that it happened, and it confirms that it is a possible weak keep--but I remain concerned that this is one relatively minor incident in a world of greater violence, and the rest of the article contains only directory information. I would recommend withdrawing the article, looking for additional content, and then re-inserting it. DGG (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete, default to keep. Carlossuarez46 18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Klein ISD Vistas High School
Another spam non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of what the school's website should be, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I've sort of gotten used to the idea of high schools being "inherently notable", but until someone wants to write an actual article instead of spam, please delete. This is not a "keep and cleanup" vote. --Fang Aili talk 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Still delete. The edits are good, but I can't find a reference that refers to the school specifically, rather than a particular program. --Fang Aili talk 14:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with the school district that this school is part, it doesn't have enough elements for a single article.--JForget 23:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - specialized high school within district for "at risk" students. I have tried to improve the article but it will grow better over time. -- DS1953 talk 02:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep High schools are notable. No reason to pick on this article. The spam allegation is a mere slur. LukeHoC 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - No such school name (see comment below). No significant coverage apparent in reliable sources, appears to be very non-notable. Google search comes up a bit short on the exact name. – Dreadstar † 02:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unlike the other high schools in the district, this is a specialized high school, with no notability Corpx 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. To exist is not enough when there are an uncounted number of other things just like it; it is the very example of not being notable. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep if it is a specialized high school, it has at least some notability.DGG (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Harris County, Texas article. — RJH (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- If the vote is decided as a merge, it should be merged to Klein Independent School District, as that agency operates Vistas. WhisperToMe 04:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a specialised High School that will take a small number of students with special needs. This school is notable as an experiment in educational methods. TerriersFan 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - a school with a revolutionary concept for the district. I think that it is notable just because of the concept which is an extreme departure for this district which in the past has not been on the cutting-edge and very conservative. I should know, I went to Klein High School.-MBK004 01:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It can be considered "revolutionary" if reliable sources think so, but as of now, no such sources are found Corpx 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per MBK004, DGG, et al. "Specialized" high school for "at risk" students is sufficient for me. Has at least one verifiable source. Bearian 20:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep well written neutral pov stub w/ references... regardless of subject that alone merits a keep. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- What? I can think of lots of non-notable things on which I could write a NPOV stub with references. --Fang Aili talk 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Having multiple verifiable references is Wikipedia's definition of notability. See Wikipedia:Notability Truthanado 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - District as a whole is notable and this is the district's alternative education school, which makes it individually notable. Since it's only been open for one year, is it reasonable for us to expect a lot of notable activities with references? I suggest we keep it. It has been tagged a stub which should encourage improvements. As the school ages and has more opportunity to do something truly notable, I believe it will improve. Truthanado 23:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as this is a notable specialized school for at risk students which meets WP:NOTE easily. Burntsauce 18:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If this is kept, the article needs to be renamed. From what the sources say, there is no high school named Klein ISD Vistas High School. There is a potential for an article named either Vistas high school program or Klein ISD Vistas high school program, and under that program there are four different high schools that fall under this program: Klein High School, Klein Collins High School, Klein Forest High School and Klein Oak High School. It seems to be locally notable according to a google search Vistas high school program, but I still think it fails WP:Notability due to lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the school or program. Fails under the now degraded Wikipedia:Schools essay. Delete or merge into an area school-district-related article.– Dreadstar † 18:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- A little more research turns up this umbrella organization: Klein Independent School District. – Dreadstar †
- Good shout about the article name. The correct name, as can be seen here, is Vistas High School to which I have moved the page. TerriersFan 20:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate your taking action on my observation, but I still don't think there is a "Vistas High School", here is a listing of their high schools, and the closet thing is the "Vistas High School Program". I will contact Vistas to clarify. I should know more by tomorrow. – Dreadstar † 21:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at that list, the Klein ISD covers a lot more than just a single, or even four high schools. A whole list of schools. – Dreadstar † 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, curious. OTOH if you go here and then follow the links on the left: Campuses->High Schools it lists five schools, the bottom one of which is called Vistas and leads to a website entitled Vistas High School. I await with interest the outcome of your enquiries :-) TerriersFan 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. It's kinda weird, isn't it? For a high school to have the word "Program" as part of its name is unusual, (Vistas High School Program - 12550 Bammel N. Houston) then the address on Brammel seems to be a sort of hub for several different schools (Klein Iintermediate, Wunderlich Intermediate, Eiland Elementary, Eppa Island Elementary, Greenwood forest Elementary, Kaiser Elementary, Kienk Elementary, and Nitsch Elementary). I tried calling them today but they were already gone for the day. I'll try again tomorrow - I also sent an email. – Dreadstar † 23:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, curious. OTOH if you go here and then follow the links on the left: Campuses->High Schools it lists five schools, the bottom one of which is called Vistas and leads to a website entitled Vistas High School. I await with interest the outcome of your enquiries :-) TerriersFan 23:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep with a rename to Vistas High School which is part of the Klein district. Silensor 07:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I just received confirmation back from Vistas: "Vistas is a stand alone program." There is no high school named Vistas High School, it is a program. – Dreadstar † 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- We all appreciate the great lengths you're going to try and see this article deleted, including but not limited to the invalid use of speedy deletion criteria, but whether or not this is called "Vistas High School" or "Vistas High School program", the subject remains to be notable, and verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Happy editing, Silensor 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Klein Intermediate School
Yet another school article without notability, and only spam. Jmlk17 06:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of what the school's website should be, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Victor falk. --Fang Aili talk 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Inetrmediate schools generally does not have their own article. It can be merged with the proper school district.--JForget 23:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment every comment in this afd is an exact copy of the comments for every article in this group, pro and con. There is no sign that anyone is paying attention to this particular article--but how can we be expected to , when so many are being nominated at a single time? I care about establishing the distinction for these article, but I despair of trying to do it at this rate. This method of nomination is unreasonable--thee are two likely results--a keep based on not particular evidence, or a delete, based on no effort to make a batter article. Neither of them contributes to the improvement of WP.
-
- I would like a comment about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific arguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would readily endorse any such proposal. I think it is bad form (and, though it's nice to assume good faith, probably WP:POINT-related) to attack most (all?) schools in a single targeted district at one time. As the unsigned comment above said, it doesn't give editors a fair chance to evaluate each individual school on its merits; it is comparable to the scenario of illicitly pushing an article through speedy deletion when it really belongs in regular deletion. --xDanielxTalk 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would endorse the no consensus proposal. It definitely seems like almost every school in this district is currently being targeted and the allegation is either that the articles are spam or advertising, which seems like a cop-out and does not adhere to the assume good faith in my eyes. Why don't we give each article a chance to be improved before just deleting them?-MBK004 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would readily endorse any such proposal. I think it is bad form (and, though it's nice to assume good faith, probably WP:POINT-related) to attack most (all?) schools in a single targeted district at one time. As the unsigned comment above said, it doesn't give editors a fair chance to evaluate each individual school on its merits; it is comparable to the scenario of illicitly pushing an article through speedy deletion when it really belongs in regular deletion. --xDanielxTalk 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I would like a comment about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific arguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Klein Oak High School
Another spam article for a school. Jmlk17 06:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. I've cleaned this up so it isn't so horrible. There are several claims of notability here, but they're not sourced, and I'm not sure they're really that notable. (The claims are: being a "GRAMMY Signature school" and having "a nationally-recognized dance drill team".) Additionally, I'm still not convinced that high schools are inherently notable, and this one seems to have attracted loads of vandalism that went unchecked for weeks or months. I am not sure if the benefit of the article outweighs the cost of being a vandal magnet. --Fang Aili talk 14:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is established by participation in the IB Programme and the music program, but still needs work and independent sources. -- DS1953 talk 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DS1953 or merge with
the county orschool district.--JForget 23:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - Strong keep The allegation that this is spam is a baseless slur. LukeHoC 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of coverage of school activities from WP:RS Corpx 05:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - A Google archives search shows that this article is eminently expandable. It is a huge school - over 3,000 students in itself a larger population than many small towns, an IB Diploma Programme and has now been identified as a Blue Ribbon school. TerriersFan 02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep if it can be sourced that "Klein Oak High School has recently been named a GRAMMY Signature school for the 2006-2007 school year. Its music department has been recognized over the past decades for outstanding performances in numerous competitions." But size along does not make a high school notable--many urban high schools of of similar sizes to that. It is not asserted that is itself the largest in the states, for example,let alone there being a source. DGG (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Harris County, Texas — 3,000+ students? Holy smokes, that's a big school. Lacks sufficient sources for me to support it as a separate article. — RJH (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep recognition by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program and sources provided for other achievements demonstrate a strong claim of notability. Alansohn 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as per discussion above, although this article would benefit from improvements. The school district as a whole is notable, as are its component high schools. Perhaps someone can improve this article to be more like its sister high school articles Klein High School, Klein Forest High School. Truthanado 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree that improvements are needed, but the issue is is this article spam, and is this school notable.
I don't think the article is spam and I believe the allegation is ridiculous.The spam allegation stems from a single user that is editing the articles pertaining to the district. The user in question has been contacted and hopefully their non-constructive activity will stop. The school is definitely notable because of the IB degree program (only available at this campus in the district), and I can confirm the GRAMMY Signature school recommendation, I live in the area and also know the band director.-MBK004 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Edited17:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC) - Keep assuming it is a true fact, but need verification, 3000 students makes it notable per se as a giant high school, larger than most townships. Also keep per User:RJHall/High_Schools. Bearian 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Benignus Elementary School
Another example of a spam article, irrelevant and non-notable school. Jmlk17 06:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a how-to guide. Plus, WP:SENSE is not policy, and WP:IAR does not apply.--WaltCip 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili talk 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As elementary schools are not really famous unless otherwise proven. It can be included in the school district though.--JForget 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The allegation that this is spam is a breach of the policy on assuming good faith. LukeHoC 02:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established & these elementary/intermediate schools fall under WP:NOT#DIR Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Directory and non-encyclopedic content. Vegaswikian 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to school district or town its located in per WP:LOCAL. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hildebrandt Intermediate School
An article about a school that is barely even beyond a stub, with spam and OR. Jmlk17 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili talk 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment no arguments have been offered having any relation to thw actual content of the article--and all are the same as for the other afds, both pro and con: I would like any opinion about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds where nothing individiual is said as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific agrguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Klein Independent School District per established precedent here. TerriersFan 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Klein Independent School District with history left intact for anyone to merge any info to the District article that they think should go there. JoshuaZ 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Strack Intermediate School
Spam article for a school. Jmlk17 06:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Hardly spam if you ask me. Consider WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability. Eusebeus 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili talk 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep The allegation that this is spam is a baseless slur. LukeHoC 02:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Klein Independent School District per established precedent here. TerriersFan 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge per TerriersFan. Vegaswikian 02:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Klein Independent School District per existing precedent, there is no need to keep spinning our wheels about this. Burntsauce 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Burntsauce just like Doerre Intermediate School.-MBK004 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Klein Independent School District. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Doerre Intermediate School
Advertising for a school, even an intermediate one should not be spam like this. Jmlk17 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No claim of notability. --Fang Aili talk 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is no evidence that this is "advertising". Frankly the allegation is pretty ridiculous. LukeHoC 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established & intermediate schools are not inherenty notable Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Klein Independent School District per established precedent here. TerriersFan 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep-This is not "advertising", and I agree that the allegation is ridiculous. It seems like there is a purge of the schools from this district ongoing. Why don't we try to improve the article instead of just summarily deleting it?-MBK004 01:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per xDanielx. Not advertising. Mathmo Talk 22:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to assert notability. Vegaswikian 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Krimmel Intermediate School
Unopened school, full of spam and advertising. Jmlk17 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. If it is opening this year, then the fact that it is unopened is of little importance if any. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school or district, the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. -- Talk 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Victor falk. --Fang Aili talk 13:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability established and intermediate schools are not inherently notable Corpx 05:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Klein Independent School District per established precedent here. TerriersFan 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Klein Collins High School
Blatant advertising and/or spam for a school. Jmlk17 06:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see blatant advertising, nor spam, I do see a user who is editing a lot of Klein Independent School District articles for some odd reason though..--Taruru 06:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - High schools generally are considered to be notable. This school is a suburban high school serving a known community in northwest Harris County. The article is verifiable and is sourced. WhisperToMe 06:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (let alone at all) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Failing merge, very, very ridiculously weakly keep due to the fact it is a high school, there has been an effort to conform to Wikipedia article formatting with this one compared to other listed school articles, and that if we start deleting high schools with no claim to fame other than existing , there will be another WP:SCHOOLS-like shitfight. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment - just about any academic organization that was a Wikipedia article has a website. "This information could exist somewhere apart from Wikipedia, therefore this information should not exist in Wikipedia" is a non sequitur. In any case, the website likely has a very small handful of administrators, while the article can be edited by several thousand knowledgeable editors, the latter collective having much more neutral intent. You won't find commentary on such things as overpopulation, drugs, violence, etc. on the school's website. Also note that as per WP:DP it is appropriate to judge the potential state of the article, not the current state of the article; not conforming to certain formatting guidelines is a reason to improve those other articles, not delete them. -- Talk 20:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep High Schools (and higher) belong. Middle/jr. high would need more notability for their own article. Pharmboy 00:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep The allegation that this is spam without foundation and is a blatant breach of the policy on assuming good faith. LukeHoC 02:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a 5A school, with plenty of coverage of school activities from reliable sources Corpx 05:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep All high schools are notable, as I argue here, and, as Corpx's link shows, there are plenty of independent sources available showing the school is notable. Noroton 19:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I agree, and would like to see this as official policy: "High Schools are automatically notable by the nature of what they are." Your linked article is spot on, plus there are several other issues that make high schools automatically notable, including the fact that it is the highest level of education achieved by the majority of the population, and how most people identify themselves via their high school graduating class (ie: I'm class of 83) even people who DIDN'T graduate. Not sure how to reopen the wp:schools and see if consensus would make this policy, but it would be worthwhile. Pharmboy 20:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - high school involved in an encyclopedic and newsworthy controversy. TerriersFan 02:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — Sufficiently notable. Is this Harris County cleanup week or something? — RJH (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as per discussion above, although this article would benefit from improvements. The school district as a whole is notable, as are its component high schools. Perhaps someone can improve this article to be more like its sister high school articles Klein High School, Klein Forest High School and Klein Oak High School. Truthanado 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree that the article could use some improvements, but the issues at hand are, is this advertising, is the school notable, etc. The answer is that it is not advertising and the allegation is preposterous, and the school is one of the larger high schools in the Houston area not to mention the state. The sports achievements alone make it notable.-MBK004 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per TerriersFan, Truthanado, MBK004, Noroton, Pharmboy, RJHall, et al. Bearian 21:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schindewolf Intermediate School
A blatant advertisement for a school; unnecessary and obviously spam. Jmlk17 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep as a somewhat useful article, at least potentially if not currently. It might not have the name recognition of Chuck Norris, but if I were considering sending my kids there I'd appreciate an informative description of the place. Remember WP:SENSE and WP:IGNORE. --
Talk 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- "I'd appreciate an informative description of the place"... for which the school's own website should be appropriate. In its current form, which is a simple duplication of the information and weasel-words that should be available on the school's website, while showing no notability outside existing and no sources independant of the school itself (although Wikipedia:Introduction appears to be a source) the article would best be redirected with possible weak minor merge to an article on the district the school is in, if identifiable. Not-a-keep not-a-vote. -- saberwyn 11:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a school catalogue--Victor falk 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Victor falk. --Fang Aili talk 13:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability established Corpx 05:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment no arguments have been offered having any relation to thw actual content of the article--and all are the same as for the other afds, both pro and con: I would like any opinion about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds where nothing individiual is said as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific agrguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into Klein Independent School District per established precedent here. TerriersFan 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Bollinger
A non-verifiable biography about a photographer. A google search brings up a two or three personal websites containing portfolios. There are no reviews or criticisms from a third party, making it both non-notable and in violation of the guidelines for WP:BIO. Expletusnox 05:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The lack of third-party reliable sources for this subject is a major concern here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Despite doing a very good job of bigging up Bollinger's photographic achievements, e.g. "photographing the President at the White House" in a paparazzi-like shot of Bush descending from a helicopter, the article doesn't manage to assert his notability in any meaningful way. Without independent outside sources, it's difficult to find a reason to keep this article here, and, as Google also brings up no independent references, I am forced to vote for deletion. —Cuiviénen 05:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, nothing on Google News Archive at all. --Dhartung | Talk 06:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom...obvious NN. Jmlk17 06:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Could possibly appear to be notable, but with a lack of references and sources to back up the claims to notability then the article does not meet the requirements in WP:Notability Ozgod 12:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, sources found. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lepakko
Not notable club that used to exist in Finland. Tuf-Kat 04:12, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete not enough information to warrent an article. Cacophony 04:40, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I recall hearing about Lepakko when it existed, but I doubt there exists enough encyclopaedic quality information to write an article about it. jni 06:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Good thing it was torn down, too. Cleduc 07:48, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Is that your argument for article deletion? The Merciful 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note (just in case): You're replying to the first AfD, made over two and a half years ago. JIP | Talk 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- D'oh! Didn't notice that. Makes me wonder why this article has been AfD twice, tough. It's not like the notability status has changed. Oh, well... :) The Merciful 10:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note (just in case): You're replying to the first AfD, made over two and a half years ago. JIP | Talk 09:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. Moreover, it is impossible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- That Google search produced for example this: [30]. Quote: As far as I know Lepakko was squatted in the early 80's and hosted many of the most legendary punk shows in Helsinki. The Merciful 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously. Jmlk17 06:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Lepakko was vital part of Finnish youth, rock and punk culture during it's time! Examples:
- Want to know about Finnish Goth subculture? Then you need to know about Bela Lugosi club which operated in Lepakko.
- Want to know about the history of Finnish radio? Then you need to know about perhaps the most influental of the first Finnsh commersial radio stations, Radio City, which operated in Lepakko.
- Want to know about Finnish youth music? Then you need to know about ELMU ry, which means you need to know about Lepakko.
- Want to know about history of youth activism in Finland? You need to know about Lepakko.
- The place could be compared to, say CBGB, in realtion to Finnish culture. All this is really common knowledge in Finnish rock/punk/underground/etc. scene. All this is quite verifiable (tough most of the material in of course in Finnish). Digging trough YLE's archives should yeld plenty of material.
- This nomination is obiviously pased on nominator's ignorance on the subject, not on lack of notability of the subject. If people think the article is of insufficient quality, then it should be tagged for expansion, not for deletion. The Merciful 11:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here's two sources: review on a book about the building in the online edition of Helsingin Sanomat (English translation from the international edition of HS) and a 30 minute report from Yle -- NordicStorm (t/c) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Perfectly notable. --ざくら木 14:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - seems notable as regards to Finnish culture. Just needs expansion. --Belovedfreak 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, seems to be somewhat notable if in an "underground" way. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per sources found above. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Lepakko was a very important place in Finnish culture for over a decade, see the above sources. JIP | Talk 09:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, should have been flagged for expansion. -Yupik 20:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] KSIV
All links are red links; purposeless dab page. Delete Giggy Talk | Review 05:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
DeleteWP:NOT#DIR. Gorkymalorki 05:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Is it possible to re-write this article? It is because a google search shows up quite a few reliable hits for this subject. It is also possible to verify the contents of this article as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Retract Delete Vote This disambigous page should stay, just because the articles have not been written about the radio stations does not justify deleting. as for your question of rewrite, if you want you can start stubs for the redlinks as long as you put in a reference of notability. Gorkymalorki 05:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, licensed full-power radio stations and airports are notable enough that the articles will eventually exist. Until then, we have this page. --Dhartung | Talk 06:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles will eventually exist, and this will at least serve as a placeholder to ensure that those articles get directed to the correct titles. Bearcat 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and let the articles be created. Red links are vital to help build Wikipedia. --Belovedfreak 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As everyone else has pointed out so well. Red links are, indeed, how we know that an article has not yet been written. Mandsford 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] City and Guilds College Union
nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails notability guidelines. Moreover, a google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. It is also impossible to verify the contents of this subject from third-party sources. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG. Note that this is not the student union for all of Imperial College, just for part of it. No sources have been provided other than the organization's own web site. --Metropolitan90 05:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN group; obvious delete. Jmlk17 06:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment Having looked several student union articles ave been nominated AfD, should these not be grouped? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a student union catalogue--Victor falk 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Nate1481( t/c) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This union is not inherently notable, so it requires "significant coverage from independent sources", which it lacks Corpx 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Delete for this one--they all have =different characteristics and should not be grouped. What would help, is afding only 2 or so at a time, so people have a chance to thing. In this case, its the union for only two schools within the college. UK university-wide student unions are probably all ntoable, at least at major universities, as argued earlier. DGG (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wholly absent case for note/WP:ORG, very, very little real content. Undermined by advertisement-like language: "not only extend the experience of college beyond the academic side, but also enhance and support it" and over-reliance on bulleted lists of unexplained/context-free trivia. MrZaiustalk 21:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to University of Chichester. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of Chichester Students' Union
nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. In aprticular, this article has nearly no association of notability other than a listing of student run bars. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN union; nothing special, and very non-notable. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a student union at a relatively new UK university, but its student union is still likely to have sources that makes it notable like other student unions in UK. It should be improved not deleted. --Bduke 11:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment Having looked several student union articles ave been nominated AfD, should these not be grouped? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like they should have. Very, very little variation in the nominations, and nearly all the responses seem universally applicable. MrZaiustalk 21:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve Students' unions in the UK are de facto separate bodies from the university and notable, especially locally, for actions and activities. Timrollpickering 12:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a student union catalogue--Victor falk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Suggest incorporating the useful information into University of Chichester, e.g. bar details into campus sections, and some record of UCSU. Doesn't warrant an article in its own right. Tafkam 15:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - local interest does not equate to notable; this is of no worth to the readership at large. Have you thought of a blog site to talk about your student union? How many people do you think would read it? Your answers will also help you understand why it is not notable for an article. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This union is not inherently notable, so it requires "significant coverage from independent sources", which it lacks Corpx 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The main student union in a UK university is notable, and plays a role in governance. DGG (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sourced case for note, and I don't grok the case for the organization being inherently notable absent secondary and tertiary sources. If a thoroughly sourced Note case can be made, I'll be happy to switch. All that matters is meeting WP:ORG - no separate standard necessary. Additionally, note that the sole source used in the article is a myspace page and there are absolutely zero Google news archive hits for the article's name - Somewhat doubtful a strong note case can be made. MrZaiustalk 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Nate1481( t/c) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to University of Bradford. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. A mention in a 3 paragraph BBC piece is not sufficient. Recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] University of Bradford Union
nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN union; nothing special, and very non-notable. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Originally part of the university article but separated due to size, info on the student unions is useful and should at least should be merged back in, as the original entry was truncated on the split.
- This is also exactly the time in the academic cycle when students will be looking at prospective universities prior to clearing and the start of a new year. The majority of Category:English_students'_unions would also fall under these. UBU is unusual in the non-hierarchical structure, and organisation of the AA, join one join all, don't know if that makes it notable or not. (Yes, it's my old uni, I'm biased) --Nate1481( t/c) 09:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment Having looked several student union articles ave been nominated AfD, should these not be grouped?
--Nate1481( t/c) 09:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, as there's not enough cohesion in the student unions to merit grouping. It would actually be much harder to have a viable discussion on the subject if multiple unions were put together. It's better to consider the unions on their own merits, if there are any. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As notable as other student unions in UK universities. Problems should be addressed with sources to improve the artcile, not delete it. --Bduke 11:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve, per Bduke. Timrollpickering 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a student union catalogue--Victor falk 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- WP:dir? Wikipedia:Department directory ? If you mean WP:NOT#DIR It's not really relevant, this (and the other 3 nominated) are articles on an organisation, not on a list of them. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Fang Aili talk 13:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Nate1481( t/c) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As previously mentioned, the union hierarchy is notable. Does warrant improvement, esp. with regard to sources but I consider the information to be useful. (Former student and have previously edited article) NRTurner 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think you should look for those sources, that would be more convincing. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This union is not inherently notable, so it requires "significant coverage from independent sources", which it lacks Corpx 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment almost no arguments have been offered having any relation to thw actual content of the article--and all are the same as for the other afds, both pro and con: I would like any opinion about a possible solution: closing every one of these afds where nothing individiual is said as no consensus, on the grounds that no specific agrguments are been proposed. DGG (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I suggest you ask the closing admin if they close as delete for the reasons for their decision, or possibly taking your suggestion to the village pump and seeing if you can make it into a policy. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Though it's somehow non notable, can be merged to the University of Bradford.--NAHID 07:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment The Category:English students' unions is also considered for deletion. In that case, a question may arised wheather this article could be kept or not.--NAHID 08:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not really, no. For one thing, I don't think the category is likely to be deleted at this time, for another, the existence of a category or even other articles is not always indicative of the inclusion of an article. Or exclusion for that matter. It's rarely (though not always) a bad idea to refer to other articles in an AFD discussion. Usually the best way to support an article is by letting it stand on its own merits. FrozenPurpleCube 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Clear attempt at demonstrating notability through third party sources, but needs more than just the one - the primary sources don't count. Are there more to be had along the lines of the BBC source?. MrZaiustalk 21:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep per above comments. Mathmo Talk 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. History will be preserved to allow any relevant information merged to the main article. This is closed this way mainly due to a lack of sourcing. recreation with reliable sources is of course acceptable. JoshuaZ 20:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barts and The London Students' Association
nn student union. almost every university in the world has one or another, and is non notable. Schools themselves may be notable, but not student unions. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN union; nothing special, and very non-notable. Jmlk17 06:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- comment Having looked several student union articles ave been nominated AfD, should these not be grouped? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Students' unions are separate entities from the universities and are notable organisations in their own right. Although BLSA is currently an autonomous part of Queen Mary Students' Union, there's a strong case for treating the medical school unions separately from other sub-divisions. Medical schools are somewhat different to other university faculties as they have a much stronger cohesion and identity and often a separate history. In turn the students' associations for medical schools are significantly more than mere faculty union sub-divisions - they are entities in their own right, often campaign, compete and raise money for charity ("RAG", a highly notable feature, especially amongst medical students - and Barts and The London raises the highest amount per student numbers). BLSA is the merger of two independent unions (The London Hospital Clubs' Union and Students' Union of St Bartholomew's Medical School) with separate histories. Timrollpickering 12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete WP:N: No claim of notability whatsoever. WP:DIR: Wikipedia is not a student union catalogue--Victor falk 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. —Nate1481( t/c) 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I dont believe student organizations are inherently notable. - No coverage provided in this case Corpx 04:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the major units in schools are notable, and not just the academic divisions, but the general student union, is one of these divisions, especially at UK universities . In this case the union is sufficiently autonomous that even as it is just for part of the university, it should qualify, as argued above. DGG (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sourced case for note, and I don't grok the case for "inherent" notability. If secondary and tertiary sources are introduced, will switch. All that matters is meeting WP:ORG - no separate standard necessary. MrZaiustalk 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment if there's reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, then I'd say keep, it's notable; if not, probably not. I'd like to see the article given a chance to add those, but it still has a bit of time within this AfD. SamBC 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry. Doesn't seem to have notability on its own. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Born anchors
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability from WP:RS that band meets WP:MUSIC criteria. Claim of an album seems to prevent CSD A7, but the album appears self-published and/or not on a major/prominent indie label. --Kinu t/c 05:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN and per nom. Jmlk17 06:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sink. Unsourced, non-notable. --Finngall talk 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Andy Barnett (radio)
Finishing incomplete nom made by User:71.215.195.150 , I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nn bio - WP:BIO. Radio hosts don't cut it. Giggy Talk | Review 05:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Giggy. Jmlk17 06:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete With no references or sources to back up the article, the subject does not meet the requirements in WP:Notability Ozgod 12:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and tag for references. Snowball. Non admin closure. Giggy Talk | Review 05:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Henry Grow
Totally unsourced. Possible original research or plagiarism. A Google search turns up that this guy lived and died on the stated dates, and that he helped build the building it says he built, but that's about all I can find. Only 90 hits on "Henry Grow" 1891, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Reswobslc 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination because I found the sources myself (with the help of the Google book link). The text appears to be adapted from the source I added - with it being dated 1886, the possibility of plagiarism is moot. Reswobslc 05:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep unless proven plagiarism and flag for references. Google books gives the following: [31]. A name and death date is not a good search. I used his name and "Mormon". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with reference notices : Tag and give the author(s) a chance to provide references. It's possible the editor just forgot to add references after writing the text. The original author of the article, who wrote the bulk of it, was not even notified of this nomination until I did so. Subject is clearly notable and is referred to in a number of books from google books. –SESmith 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, needs references but not deletion. Subject is clearly notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Basic zip
Initially nominated for speedy deletion, then converted to PROD due to article not fitting a narrow definition of WP:CSD#A7. Editor has objected to deletion via PROD path, which triggers nomination at AFD. This is a non-notable piece of software; it is one of hundreds of applications with similar functionality, and the article text states that this particular version is under-featured relative to other versions from other developers. No assertion of notability has been put forth except "It is created to make browsing zipped entries easier". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete I agree; straightforward self-promotion. — brighterorange (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete as spamolicious. Pharmboy 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable selfpromotion. Created by User:Scenic lookouts directory who added "Developer email: webmaster@sceniclookouts.com" [32], and program is at http://www.sceniclookouts.com/BasicZip.html. PrimeHunter 04:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, NN. Pavel Vozenilek 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N with probable COI issues (not that COI is a deletion criterion). Seems like a WP:NOT#DIR problem.... -- MarcoTolo 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete and redirect to J.K. Rowling. Sr13 is almost Singularity 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jessica Rowling Arantes
J.K. Rowling's 14-year-old daughter. She hasn't done anything to be notable in her own right. NawlinWiki 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge Agreed she has done nothing except for being J.K. Rowling's daughter. That falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Gorkymalorki 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Neither Jessica nor her mother have taken any action which would bring Jessica into the public eye in her own right. --Metropolitan90 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to J.K. Rowling. Pretty clear-cut case of a non-notable relative of a celebrity. —Cuiviénen 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, then redirect to mother's article. Nothing here worth salvaging, sufficient material already in other article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete being a child of a celebrity doesn't cut it whatsoever. Jmlk17 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Jmlk. Oysterguitarist 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to the mother that has done something. Merge/source any pertinent biographical information into that article. -- saberwyn 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Subject does not meet the requirements for WP:Notability. Simply because her mother is quite possibly one of the most successful writers of recent times does not extend her mother's notability to her. Ozgod 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect. Notability is not inherited. --Targeman 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability in her own right. --Belovedfreak 15:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - nothing at all outside being her mother's daughter to indicate notability. Not sure if a redirect is really necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to the J.K's article, that looks obvious.--JForget 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete She has done nothing of note and notability is not inherited. I have privacy concerns too as a child who is not a public figure and is relatively unknown should be allowed to grow up without her childhood being documented. WP:BLP says the presumption should be in favor of privacy and I think that's true here. --Malcolmxl5 17:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drive-by argument
Non-notable band. Consult the Google and you'll get 18,500 hits, the first page of which are MySpace pages and user-contribution sites like YouTube or BlogSpot. Consequentially 04:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Their most recent single, The Sega Method, was released on March 5th 2007, with their debut album due for release in mid to late 2007." No thanks. Shalom Hello 04:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 non-notable band, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per NN band not needing a page. Jmlk17 06:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disco sexy
I'm not sure what this is. Maybe a dicdef, maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax? All I know is that Goggle doesn't know what is either. It's the title of a song, and a descriptor on a costume? Non-notable. Consequentially 04:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A1 (no context) per nom. Shalom Hello 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- A1 Speedy as no context per Shalom, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Definitely A1 and possible G1, seems like nonsense to me. Gorkymalorki 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per obvious "what the hell?" article. Jmlk17 06:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom Hello 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of former members of the United States House of Representatives
- List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
At 641 KB, this is the longest article on the English Wikipedia (the next largest being less than two-thirds the size) and it does nothing that a category would not do. We have Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives and I can not imagine a situation why anyone would need to have only the "former" members, and if they did, why they wouldn't be able to use the existing category and just click to see whether the member is still in Congress. Furthermore, it has already been split up into shorter articles for A-E, F-L, M-P, Q-T, and U-Z. ←BenB4 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to category, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't consider this redundant to the category for a couple of reasons. The category lists only names, but the list includes other vital information alongside the names (e.g. when they served in the House of Representatives). Also, categories are limited to 200 per page, but lists can go longer.
- Since the article is already split into smaller lists, this page could be turned into a set-index page, with links to the other pages. That's an editorial decision, and does not require a formal deletion debate. Shalom Hello 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you mean to !vote keep then? — brighterorange (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per summary style as pointer to the smaller articles. If we're not considering deleting them, why get rid of this entirely? If you want to point to this for any reason it's a lot easier to point to an umbrella than to just one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Convert to disambiguation list/index for the shorter articles... see List of Star Wars planets for an example. Ensure article is completely split out into subarticles first. -- saberwyn 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- keep but replace with an index to the sublists A-E, F-L, etc. This isn't redundant to a category because it can and does include redlinks, and because other information is listed with each name. I don't see why this list should not also include current representatives, also... — brighterorange (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Obvious encyclopedic value. --Fang Aili talk 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I am not sure, but maybe the nominator is suggesting we delete List of former members of the United States House of Representatives because it is so long, and keep the pages that break it up (A-E, etc.)
In that case, I suggest we redirect List of former members of the United States House of Representatives to A-E. The entire list by itself is too long--it just broke my browser. --Fang Aili talk 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Agree with creating a nav page, per User:Brighterorange. --Fang Aili talk 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not sure, but maybe the nominator is suggesting we delete List of former members of the United States House of Representatives because it is so long, and keep the pages that break it up (A-E, etc.)
- Redirect to List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (A-E); further navigation can proceed from there. There's no point to making this a separate navigation page. RandomCritic 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Redirect, agree with above by RandomCritic, with short summary of list, and links to all sections of the list.Other -- Wait Per Valadius' request, awaiting completion of list, after which I will review and make my decesion. Still leaning towards a more comprehensiveable breakup of the list purely for navigational reasons. Would oppose any removal of names or info. On a side note, this list has broken my browser more times than I care to count. By that fact alone makes me feel that *some* change is neccessary. Zidel333 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep. Before any of you rush to judgment on this, I implore you to hear me out. I understand that this is by far the longest article, I know that. I have been working on this article, for the most part on my own, for over two years. It is EXTREMELY close to being completed. Please see my user page for a fuller understanding of its completion rate. Now, this may be selfish on my part, but think about this for a minute - imagine that you have been working on something for over two years, something that you regard as a major accomplishment, and then, quite possibly a week before it was to be completed, it was torn to bits. That's the way I'm feeling right now. Therefore, I beg of you all, please reserve your final judgment on this article's fate until I have completed it. Now, ultimately, once I have completed this page, I will restructure it so that it won't take up so much space, but please, I implore you, if you have concerns, please talk to me. This is essentially my pet project, and I am very defensive about it. — Valadius 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Valadius, given that the information has been separated into subarticles, what is your position on that? I think it's a reasonable article but I prefer it split up in some fashion. (Noting that we already have articles such as everything on {{US Congress by state}}, although I have no idea of their completeness, so that option is already taken care of.) Although I'm in favor of keeping the information, though, realize that effort isn't a keep rationale, unfortunately. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note that people on the talk page are complaining that it won't load in their browsers. ←BenB4 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per numerous keep comments above. This is an extremely important and useful list; among other things, the redlinks reflect articles still to be written. Newyorkbrad
- Keep It's a long article covering a large and important subject. A category does not allow the presence of redlinks, which show articles which need to be created. categories and lists have different functions in Wikipedia. Lists can include the additional data fields such as years of service and parties. No objection to redirecting to a series of similar lists broken up into A-E etc. to avoid crashing the computer of someone with limited ram or a slow connection. Edison 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was bold and directed to the shorter lists (A-E)(F-L)(M-P)(Q-T)(U-Z). If no one reverts it, then we can close the AfD; if someone reverts it, then never mind.--Old Hoss 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Daily Grind (coffeeshop)
Non-notable coffee house franchise. The Google gives 51,400 hits but a high percentage of them are irrelevant to the coffee chain. What pages are about coffee shops (that may or may not be in this chain, it's difficult to tell) are self-promotion pages by the individual coffee shop or unrelated articles that make use of the popular phrase. Consequentially 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable coffeeshop. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep per below. I didn't realize it was a chain, I thought it was just one coffeeshop. Seems to pass WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This chain has gone nationwide with over 100 locations, and has received coverage in secondary sources, such as being ranked in February 2007 by Entrepreneur Magazine as one of the top coffee house franchises in the country [33]. Passes WP:COMPANY (although you can't really tell from the article itself), just needs expansion. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and expand, seems to pass WP:CORP --Darksun 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep major national chain. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above sans nom. Also notable in that musicians sometimes record Cds in their venues, for example at the Troy, New York location. Conflict notice - I like, but don't love their coffee. Bearian 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Claude Engle
This person is very thin on notability. He is an electrical engineer, has authored some professional papers, been active in some professional organizations, and has lectured widely. The only reference is his own website. Let the community decide. ●DanMS • Talk 03:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, subject appears to have some notability within interior lighting design circles. Has lit numerous famous buildings, including the Reichstag and a building at UT also by Norman Foster, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the National Postal Museum, the Walter P. Chrysler Museum, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- More: St Pancras Thameslink railway station, the Queen Elizabeth II Great Court of the British Museum, and the Louvre. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Use the indicated newspieces to expand and source the article please. No stance on actual deletion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saberwyn (talk • contribs).
- Keep Engineers and architects are made notable not only or even primarily by their writings, but their creative works, and the list given wis way more than enough. Better sourcing is needed. DGG (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a notable engineer I think this one passes the bio guidelines. Burntsauce 17:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Charles Trippy
Non-notable YouTuber. Article lacks secondary sources, and assertions of notability fail to hold up. Improvement templates disregarded and deleted. Subject seems to have a following on YouTube and may warrant an article in the future, but not quite yet. Ichormosquito 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All of his sources are from youtube, except one, which does not have a review of him or anything like that, just saying that he is in a contest. Maybe if he wins the contest he could possibly claim notibility. Gorkymalorki 03:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Not only is Wikipedia NOT the Youtube user directory, this guy isn't even particularly well-known there: his videos mostly have view counts in the low thousands, which is nothing by YouTube standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That must be why he is a YouTube Revenue partner, right?CoolKid1993 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Corky. WP:BIO not met. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 04:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Exhibition Systems
While this subject may be notable, this reads like spam or a puff piece out of an article directory. It was edited by one user and the system raises WP:COI concerns. Crystallina 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE this article reads like a FAQ. Gorkymalorki 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. While this is a potentially interesting subject, the present article is a how-to and unfit for an encyclopedia article. --Targeman 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Oysterguitarist 03:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. There could be a good article about the subject but this isn't it. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3 (deliberate hoax). Stifle (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Honorable Honor Medal of The Many Arms Of Vishnu
Article sounds entirely like a hoax. Could not find any notable G-hits for "Banghra Manjai" or "Sajur Minjapiriyamir" --Uthbrian (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Definitly a Hoax. Nothing on Google. The article says that Banghra Manjai is a holy city, yet there is absolutly nothing on google about it. Gorkymalorki 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, reason #419,000 that hoaxes should be speediable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, it has "hoax" written all over it. Pretty funny, though. --Targeman 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong/Speedy delete article about a non-existent award given in a non-existent city by a non-existent person. Hut 8.5 13:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as obvious hoax. I would join this religion, but for the fact that I already belong to the Cult of the Empty Set. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete dumb and obvious hoax which has inexplicably existed for over two years! Unlike most hoax articles we get, though, this one is at least slightly funny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Now that you mention this, I believe we have a new record for the longest-standing hoax ever (it beat the previous record by a couple of weeks already). Wait 4 more days and we'll have an exactly 2-year-long hoax. Yay! :D --Targeman 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Game Camp USA
I believe that the article fails to establish its subject's notability. All the sources dealing with the subject of the article itself are links to the organization's web-page, I was unable to turn up news coverage specific to this group. Douglasmtaylor T/C 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There are some credible refernces on this article, but they have nothing to do with Game Camp USA, just the software they use in the camp. a google search just brings up numerous camp listings advertising the camp, no reviews or anything like that from a third party. Gorkymalorki 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - TheProphetTiresias mentioned "There will be independent references after the 2007 summer season." - I suggest creating the article then, then, and not before, per our WP:V policy. Marasmusine 07:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 08:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable activity. Keb25 12:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete a summer camp would have to be REALLY notable to get an article. While this is certainly novel, novelty and notability are not the same concept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good article and notable. I wanted to go there myself when I was smaller. However, delete due to lack of external sources. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snowball keep, non admin closure. Nomination withdrawn, no votes to delete. -- saberwyn 11:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spells in Harry Potter
- Spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Spells in Harry Potter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
I think it could be argued that the article does not meet notability the primary notability guideline - no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (Wikipedia:Notability), (I don't think Harry Potter Lexicon is considered a reliable secondary source). Since the equivalent article for non-canonical spells was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-canonical spells in Harry Potter) seemed like this one should also be up for discussion. Guest9999 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Oh no you didnt! This page is great! ϲнʌɴɗɩєʀ 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Cast a deletion spell on it. Not at all a notable fork of the almighty Potter. Spells in a fantasy series are not notable enough, and can't be verified by reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Keep only because it doesn't seem to violate any policies. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- edit-conflicted x2 Keep- article is very encyclopedic; it not only provides the list of spells, it explains each one of them and includes more non-trivial information than many lists. It is properly sourced, IMO, and is a B-class article that is discussed constantly. I can't believe it would be nominated for deletion. Afd is not the place for your concerns. If you've got a problem with the references, tag it with {{refimprove}} --Boricuaeddie 02:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- The article does not fall within any of the arguments presented by WP:NOT#INFO. --Boricuaeddie 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I still believe that the spells are trivial and cannot be properly sourced from reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, spells are trivial, but the article is most definitely not. It includes valuable information and descriptions of every spell. I trust the sources. If you don't, tag it with {{refimprove}}. --Boricuaeddie 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your last argument still translates to WP:USEFUL in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't read WP:USEFUL entirely. It says "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." (my argument is bolded) This article is of interest to many people, and is very encyclopedic. Your point is invalid. --Boricuaeddie 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, you're right, I was misinterpreting WP:USEFUL. Vote changed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You didn't read WP:USEFUL entirely. It says "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." (my argument is bolded) This article is of interest to many people, and is very encyclopedic. Your point is invalid. --Boricuaeddie 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your last argument still translates to WP:USEFUL in my opinion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, spells are trivial, but the article is most definitely not. It includes valuable information and descriptions of every spell. I trust the sources. If you don't, tag it with {{refimprove}}. --Boricuaeddie 02:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Point taken. I still believe that the spells are trivial and cannot be properly sourced from reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article does not fall within any of the arguments presented by WP:NOT#INFO. --Boricuaeddie 02:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is very well written, a world away from the usual fancruft. I cannot find any WP policy that this article would violate. As per reliable sources, I guess Harry Potter books are the obvious one. --Targeman 02:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Are the Potter books third party? No. Find a good whack of third-party sources and add them to this article, then I'll change my vote to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, what exactly would you expect to find in third-party sources? A confirmation that what is written in Harry Potter is actually written there? I think a page number and the ISBN code of the book where each spell is mentioned are more than sufficient. --Targeman 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Works for me. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously, just like with the non-canonical spells page, I think this should stay. Of course, I'm sure the stifling codgers of Wikipedia will find some way to delete this. GlassCobra 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for insulting me :-) Would you be willing to provide a more valid rationale? This is a violation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Boricuaeddie 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't insulting you; near as I can tell, you want to keep this too, which puts us on the same side, amigo. I realize that maybe my one-sentence initial justification is a violation of WP:ILIKEIT, but what about the other things that have been cited? Like to whoever said that this list and the non-canon spells list before were cruft (and I do distinctly remember several people saying it, what about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Ever read it, or did that one escape your notice? On another note, yes, Wikipedia articles ought to have third-party sources, but have you tried using common sense? Articles need third-party sources when, for example, they need proof that they even exist (like the moon landing hoax). However, I think that in this particular sense there are some pretty reputable sources, like, oh, I don't know...the books that they appeared in, maybe? What about books that someone else has mentioned, The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? Get your heads on straight, guys, and use your energy to argue about articles that actually cause problems. GlassCobra 06:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, Eddie, besides the first few, the "you"s in that mini-rant weren't actually aimed at you, but rather the people who will (inevitably) vote to delete this article. Sorry for any confusion and/or hurt feelings. GlassCobra 08:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a copy of Colbert's book, and can confirm that it can be used to source some spells. However, as it was written after Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, it cannot be used to reference the newer spells. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for insulting me :-) Would you be willing to provide a more valid rationale? This is a violation of WP:ILIKEIT. --Boricuaeddie 02:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe the books that could be used to justify having the names and effects of the spells (Although I still think that might - rightly or wrongly - be against policy) but things like the etymology are not mentioned in the books and are probably pure original research (Wikipedia:No original research). Unless someone has stated somewhere that the words are directly related from the particular real word in Latin (or whatever language) isn't it just the assumption fo the editor. [[Guest9999 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- That I can agree with. Although most etymologies are transparent to anyone who knows Latin, many of them remain dubiously justified in the article. Unless the author of the series has confirmed the etymologies, they should be deleted from the article as OR.--Targeman 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Etymology is actually something easy to source. All you'd need is a Latin dictionary. FrozenPurpleCube 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- It would then still be original research unless one can source the author confirming the etymologies given are correct, i.e. those are indeed where she got the idea for the chosen phase from. -- KTC 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - There's probably some original research here but a good deal of the information, the bulk I suspect, is probably found in the Harry Potter books (which I have not read. This isn't ILIKEIT.) Get rid of the speculation and it should be fine. Crystallina 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Close Harry Potter is pretty notable. Spells do exist in Harry Potter and as that series is about magic and casting spells, it's obvious that some coverage of that subject is appropriate. Therefore, I suggest discussion of the extent of coverage of this subject take place on the appropriate discussion pages, not on AFD. FrozenPurpleCube 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Protego - Are you kidding me? Avada Kedavra in Google News, accio and "harry potter" in Google News, Alohomora in Google News, Expelliarmus in Google News, Expecto patronum in Google News, Wingardium Leviosa in Google News. Muggle translation: Keep. Ichormosquito 03:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Those links don't really show much, just that the names of a few spells are emntioned in some news articles. Should the page then just be a list of 6 spell names? [[Guest9999 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- The links should appeal to common sense, if nothing else. Many of these spells have currency in popular culture or the mainstream media. I could see an article for each spell being a problem; but what we have instead is a useful, benign, and encyclopedic index for terms, many of which are notable in themselves, that originate from an exceptionally notable work of fiction. Ichormosquito 05:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube. -- KTC 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This is a fairly obvious WP:SNOW case here. I'm leaving it to the admins to close this one, since a.) I voted in this myself, and b.) it's only been open a few hours. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Yes, I must agree with FrozenPurpleCube that the spells of the Harry Potter universe are significant enough to be retained on Wikipedia. Acs4b T C U 05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I still don't think that any arguements have been made as to my original point that it fails the primary notability criteria.[[Guest9999 05:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
-
- Comment - Would you be satisfied if editors reference some of the many secondary Harry Potter works that list and explain spells, such as The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek or Magical Worlds of Harry Potter by David Colbert? Ichormosquito 05:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Not sure about Guest99999, but to me that sounds like a fairly reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 05:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- I should probably add that I haven't read any of those, I'm only making an educated guess as to their contents. Ichormosquito 05:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction or fantasy-related deletions. — Ichormosquito 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is plenty notable. This is important information that Harry Potter fanatics need to have available at all times. I know it's useful, because I just used it to check the spelling of a hex that I just shouted at my friend. I agree that some sources should be added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.107.35.118 (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a valuable source when we want to translate any Harry Potter stuff to other languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.228.74.189 (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Harry Potter series extremely notable and the spells are an intricate and crucial part of the book. This is a good guide. I accessed it tonight when I couldn't remember what the "Fidelius Charm" was. It would have been a real pain to have to go back into the old books to find when it was first described. When I found this tonight, I was unhappy to see it nominated. I suppose it COULD be merged ito the Harry Potter series article, but then that article would be too big. There are published works with the same information available, but I don't have access to them at the moment. If someone is truly worried about the reliability of the sources here, they should do the work themselves instead of just putting the article in AFD. nut-meg 07:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. I stated this in the deletion debate for the non-canon spells, but it holds true here as well: this article ought to be improved instead of just deleted. GlassCobra 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't worried abount the reliability of sources, I was worried that no reliable, independent third party sources actually existed. [[Guest9999 10:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
- Good point. I stated this in the deletion debate for the non-canon spells, but it holds true here as well: this article ought to be improved instead of just deleted. GlassCobra 07:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article is very useful, valuable and of a good standard. With the recent release of Deathly Hallows it was relentlessly vandalised with specualtion, but the hard-working editors of the page (myself included) have kept it to a minimum, insisting that everything is sourced. I also agree with previous editor's comments about this only being here because it is considered fancruft or whatever. If anyone has a problem with the article, they should fix it instead of trying to delete it. ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 09:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Close I think it's pretty clear what the consensus is by now and I think I was a bit hasty with the AfD tag. I still think it's important that the article actually cites some sources (maybe the books mentioned above or at least HP references) and that sections such as the etymology and pronounciation are likely pure origional research but I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. [[Guest9999 10:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)]]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as unsourvced and possibly PoV. However, I will restore and userfy to anyone who asks and expressesd the intent to source this. A similar list with sources demonstrzting which films actually were top-grossing, and at least sourcing multiple favorable reveiws for "critically aclaimed" films might well be acceptable. Anyone who wants to use this as the basis for that is welcome to do so. DES (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of top Tollywood films
Possibly violates WP:NOT as being 'original research'; this was the assertion of the editor who nominated this article for speedy deletion using Template:db with the following accompanying reason "serves no real purpose except being a 'list' - nothing more. Most of the content looks like Original Research (no sources)". I bring this here as it is inappropriate to delete under speedy criteria and I express no opinion about its suitability for inclusion in Wikipedia. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless it can be sourced. Or maybe rename to List of Tollywood films? Lugnuts 11:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Rename to List of Tollywood films per Lugnuts. Sounds too POV-ish to me currently. FamicomJL 15:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as OR. (List of Tollywood films would be perfectly acceptable however.) --Belovedfreak 15:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete original research. Also, List of Telugu-language films already exists, so there is no point in renaming it to List of Tollywood films. - TwoOars 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note - I created a redirect from List of Tollywood films to List of Telugu-language films. Also two more articles List of top Tamil-language films and List of top Bollywood films might be of interest here. - TwoOars 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep No doubt that this can be sourced, and very quickly at that. The format of the article, which has existed for more than a year, and has had several contributors, is worth copying, in that a brief description is included about these Tamil language films. Mandsford 18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sources can be found for top grossing films, but where can we set the line? At what point are films considered top-grossing? And what about the critically acclaimed films? How do we define them? - TwoOars 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sourced. Badly-defined POV list at it stands. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as renamed List of Tollywood films. Mathmo Talk 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please note: List of Tollywood films (=List of Telugu-language films) is a different article altogether, which already exists. Present discussion is about List of top Tollywood films. - TwoOars 04:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unless sourced.Vice regent 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for now, with the intention of merging with List of Telugu-language films. This article is a more informative list than List of Telugu-language films, but the two lists have very different formats, making merger problematic. Neither article list is appropriately sourced. Improvement is more likely to occur if this article is kept as raw material for a better article; deleting it will only force the contributors to start over again.--orlady 14:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete badly sourced. Harlowraman 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jared Cicon
We are cautioned by notability guidelines to consider the long-term notability of a subject before justifying an article on a given subject, especially in regards to living persons. This sentiment is echoed by the "not news" guideline, and represents a belief that an action that generates a small flurry of activity in news is not automatically notable because of that flurry.
Mr. Cicon is the reason why this policy exists. Being a finalist for the Doritos Super Bowl ad, by itself, isn't an achievement that stands the test of time. While the winner might justify an article considering the national visibility of his work, finalists are the "almosts but not quites." The articles do mention Cicon, but they're focus is on the contest and its effect on advertising and the SuperBowl -- not his ad specifically.
No one here can argue that Mr. Cicon is going to go down in history for his contribution to the ad campaign. His five minutes were up as soon as the Super Bowl was over. We're not in the business of chronicling every would-be winner for every ad campaign gambit. Consequentially 02:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Runners-up aren't usually notable unless they manage to do find success beyond their almost-success (e.g. Miranda Lambert). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree with nom about no "historic notability" for this person. Corpx 04:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, bordering on speedy, on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Good job to those who found the sources. Carlossuarez46 18:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network
No notability asserted in this vanity entry for a non-notable group claiming to be "committed to educating and facilitating communication about destructive mind control". Take away the self-congratulatory puff-piece press-release material and there's no article left. No references, no notability, article even admits that they've kept a "low profile" since 1995. wikipediatrix 02:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete. They don't seem to be much more than a detractor of Scientology. Doesn't make 'em notable, it just makes them detractors of Scientology. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Change to keep. Seems they're notable after all. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just detractors of Scientology, failing WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Although the article's style is unquestionably laden with self-promotion, the exact query ""Fight Against Coercive Tactics Network" turns out almost 18,000 hits on Google [34], albeit admittedly nothing that could be called a solid source (although it has passing mentions at the Library of Congress, several colleges, and Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance). It's a pretty borderline case as far as notability is concerned. What is clear is that the article is stylistically absolutely horrendous in its present shape.--Targeman 02:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Actually, it only gets 212 Google hits. The rest are duplicates and not unique, and they're largely spam, blogs, amateur anti-Scientology sites and Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a question of settings, but I consistently get 17,700 hits when I click on my link and 212 when I click on yours. It's the same query! Weird... :-(??? --Targeman 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You have to click through the listings until you reach the end. In all Google searches, the unique hits peter out long before reaching the officially stated amount of hits. Unique hits are what matter, because it's the nature of blogs and many other sites that a story is self-linked to on a sidebar, causing one page on one site to generate hundreds of "hits" by itself. wikipediatrix 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, OK :-) You wouldn't believe how many WTF moments I used to have when I'd arrive at the end of the list sooner than I expected. Thanks for explaining one of the deepest mysteries of the universe. ;-) --Targeman 03:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You have to click through the listings until you reach the end. In all Google searches, the unique hits peter out long before reaching the officially stated amount of hits. Unique hits are what matter, because it's the nature of blogs and many other sites that a story is self-linked to on a sidebar, causing one page on one site to generate hundreds of "hits" by itself. wikipediatrix 02:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a question of settings, but I consistently get 17,700 hits when I click on my link and 212 when I click on yours. It's the same query! Weird... :-(??? --Targeman 02:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it only gets 212 Google hits. The rest are duplicates and not unique, and they're largely spam, blogs, amateur anti-Scientology sites and Wikipedia mirrors. wikipediatrix 02:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it's low google score under this name is because it may be more often known as FACTnet- under that name a basic google yields 111,000 hits.Merkinsmum 06:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- That's actually 774 unique hits, and many of them are not about the same organization as this one. wikipediatrix 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've begun adding references, which it badly needed (and weren't that hard to find) and I expect to add some more. That's takes care of the reference and notable objections. After that, the article would need a style cleanup and pruning, but that's easy enough to do. AndroidCat 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and merge to Lawrence A. Wollersheim. FACTnet is Wollersheim (and perhaps Arnie Lerma, another Scn detractor) but what is very interesting is that there is no mention of Wollersheim in the FACTnet article and likewise no mention of FACTnet in the Wollersheim article. Take from that what you will. FACTnet is Wollersheim, see this and see this. Wollersheim is notable and has an article. I see no evidence that he and Lerma's personal Scientology attack site is notable. --Justanother 14:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It even has a strong mention in the Guardian [35] a very good source to have. I wouldn't say it was just a passing mention either, as it is one of the main protagonists in the debacle.Merkinsmum 16:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- My old high school marching band got a 'strong mention' in the New York Times and several other newspapers in cities where we visited, but that doesn't make my old high school marching band notable for a Wikipedia article. Anyone can start any kind of club or group and garner some mentions in major media if they send out enough press releases. I see no evidence that Factnet is a "real" nonprofit organization any more than half of Scientology's own pretend groups. Though they claim to be a non-profit organization and are asking for donations, I see no official statement of their 501(c)(3) status, which is legally required for real nonprofits. wikipediatrix 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by official statement? Guidestar lists FACTNet: "Contributions are deductible, as provided by law. A Form 990 is available for this organization." (Guidestar now requires registration for further information.) AndroidCat 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, nonprofit status of any flavor does not necessarily connote automatic notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say it did. wikipediatrix questioned that they were an actual non-profit group and I responded. Besides, the current number of added refs put them over the notability line already. AndroidCat 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- So noted on the links. Thanks for the pointer. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say it did. wikipediatrix questioned that they were an actual non-profit group and I responded. Besides, the current number of added refs put them over the notability line already. AndroidCat 17:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, nonprofit status of any flavor does not necessarily connote automatic notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean by official statement? Guidestar lists FACTNet: "Contributions are deductible, as provided by law. A Form 990 is available for this organization." (Guidestar now requires registration for further information.) AndroidCat 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- My old high school marching band got a 'strong mention' in the New York Times and several other newspapers in cities where we visited, but that doesn't make my old high school marching band notable for a Wikipedia article. Anyone can start any kind of club or group and garner some mentions in major media if they send out enough press releases. I see no evidence that Factnet is a "real" nonprofit organization any more than half of Scientology's own pretend groups. Though they claim to be a non-profit organization and are asking for donations, I see no official statement of their 501(c)(3) status, which is legally required for real nonprofits. wikipediatrix 17:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep based on the sourcing. The article however, needs some major overhaul for NPOV--but that is no reason for deletion. . DGG (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete - not sure about notability per WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- keep I've heard of them, had them bookmarked for years (as FACTNet), and there are sources given in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cull the overly positive tone in which the article is written. I'm not sure it rises to vanity status (did the subject write it?), but it's definitely a bit POV. The Scientology stuff seems relevant to the article about it vs the internet, so if the article is to be deleted I recommend at least incorporating said info into said other article. I do know that an article with references from CNN and Guardian has very likely passed the notability test. Anynobody 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep References look good to me. Anonymouse3 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by Stifle per A7. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Foundry Field Recordings
Non-notable band. Me5000 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete On tour right now, but only in Midwestern states and New York, and even then only in small clubs. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Sethacus 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Keb25 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 07:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Information virus
This appears to be a personal essay and falls under WP:NOT→publisher of original thought. The article was originally inappropriately tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (non-notable website) User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - Nonsense (WP:CSD#G1). Giggy Talk | Review 01:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This is not nonsensical text; it is readable and understandable, not gibberish. It just doesn't belong here, but it is not a speedy deletion candidate. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Regular delete. Not nonsense per se, but definitely an essay that should go. Realkyhick 01:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-encyclopedic essay. I don't see how this qualifies for a speedy, though. --Targeman 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete although it's gramatically correct, and seems to be about something, it could hardly be less coherent. Looks like nonsense to me. -Steve Sanbeg 03:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Essay and OR. -- KTC 05:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be original research as noted above, pure as driven snow and unadulterated by sources.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Nonsense essay. Keb25 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per A1. This article has no context. Gorkymalorki 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete original research/essay, the creator even admits it's an "original article" [36]. Not a speedy candidate. Hut 8.5 13:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, soapboxing. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not something that is appropriate for the mainspace. If the author had more contributions to Wikipedia, I would just userfy it, but with this being their sole contribution to the project, I have concerns about their intention (someone who adds to the project and wants to have a mini-rant in their userspace I'm okay with; someone who is, apparently, here solely to rant I am not). EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - reads like an original essay. No references. JoJan 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete lump-o-nonsense. I wouldn't even call it an essay: stuff like "why process and analyze what you're ex's great aunt says? I don't, I'm more "interested" in things like computers..." wouldn't pass muster in a high-school English class. At best it's an attempted essay. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This is defintiely an essay and is full of OR and not sourced.--JForget 23:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Should have been left as a speedy. Waste of time resurrecting crap. --Tony Sidaway 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Move. I say delete from mainspace because it's non-encyclopedic, a personal essay, original research, unsourced, and non-notable. It is, however, most definitely not nonsense. The person does have something interesting to say, but it's just not appropriate as a mainspace article. Lets not hit him/her over the head. I don't see anything malicious, and it's not a sophomoric prank (I've CSD tagged dozens of those). I would rather move it to user space, offer some suggestions on writing an usable article on the concept, if reliable sources can be found for "information virus" (it sounds a bit like meme), and then watch what happens. If it turns out that this is nothing more than just a rant, and the idea unsalvageable, it can always be deleted later. Or ignored, as it won't hurt anyone/thing there. [Don't bite the newbies] — Becksguy 00:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't about a website, and doesn't fit any of the other Speedy criteria. It should not have been speedy delted. (Actually WP:PROD was probasbly the optimum way to go.)That said, unless there are sources cited to show that these are the published notable views of soemoone wirth attributign them to, they don't belong here. Delete. DES (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, personal essay appears to violate WP:NOR. Not opposed to userfication. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington.
[edit] Chicago Sports Fan Message Board
The page says it is no longer an active message board. Probably was not notable in the first place. End of page is just pathetic. Speciate 01:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, absolutely non notable message board. Possibly A7 (nn web content). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Non notable message board, and fails WP:WEB. "That's a terrible article." (Un-funny variation of final quote). Giggy Talk | Review 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, almost a speedy, not notable.Realkyhick 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7. Consider it tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Burn, per WP:CSD#A7, or slow burn per WP:WEB. Sad, sad, sad. --Boricuaeddie 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, no notability shown; and A1, very brief article with minimal context. One line article about a novelist with a single book. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Steve Horsfall
One book, with an Amazon rank of 1,069,000. Completely unable to find any other information about the author. ELIMINATORJR 01:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless more reputable sources not affiliated with the author are provided, this person is not notable enough. --Hdt83 Chat 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Absolutely nothing in a search of Google News Archive. Athena Press is "author-funded", i.e. self-published. --Dhartung | Talk 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Non notable person, A7. Nothing controversial. Also WP:BIO. Giggy Talk | Review 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. One book does not a notable author make, unless you're J.K. Rowling. Realkyhick 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- If her first book had flopped, she wouldn't be notable either. -- saberwyn 11:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete fails WP:BIO. Oysterguitarist 03:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete not notable and fails WP:BIO Harlowraman 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Vanity nn bio. Keb25 13:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus - keep. There are also some important questions raised here which should be answered. Best to err on side of caution. --JodyB yak, yak, yak 21:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Carl Whitney
Non-notable player, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Kinston eagle 00:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Kinston eagle 01:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Never played in the majors as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Never was a "Baseball executives, coaches, or manager" as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Never played in the "top professional league in his country" as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. On the whole, a non-notable "reserve outfielder" with no sources. Kinston eagle 01:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Negro League Player.. the Negro Leaguers were the top professional league for African American players at the time. Spanneraol 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: This is not what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball guidelines say. In fact, the guidelines do not address the Negro Leagues at all. What you're saying is that every "reserve outfielder" who ever put on a uniform for a Negro League team is more notable than AAA players who are on the major league 40 man roster - who have been specifically barred from Wikipedia by the guidelines.
- Reply Well my opinion is that the AAA players on the 40 man roster are NOT barred from Wiki by the guidelines.
- Reply: This is not what the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball guidelines say. In fact, the guidelines do not address the Negro Leagues at all. What you're saying is that every "reserve outfielder" who ever put on a uniform for a Negro League team is more notable than AAA players who are on the major league 40 man roster - who have been specifically barred from Wikipedia by the guidelines.
- Keep. I would love to see more info about him, and am of the opinion that anyone in the Negro leagues belongs in wikipedia as much as anyone in the majors.Ravenmasterq 01:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. To quote Ravenmasterq: "No stats in major league baseball' seems to clear this up" Kinston eagle 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. Yet, I think we have to treat the Negro leagues differently; remember there was prejudice, discrimination and a separation of black and white. He played five years before Jackie Robinson, so there was no precedent for integration. Therefore, for his 'kind', as might have been said in the day, he reached the highest level.Ravenmasterq 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. To quote Ravenmasterq: "No stats in major league baseball' seems to clear this up" Kinston eagle 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete: I really hate to say this, especially being a baseball fan, but I can't find anything on the guy - no stats, nothing. All I found was a bio at a site called whitneygen.org, which may or may not be a family site. Either way, it's not notable. It's not even reachable; all I could find was the cache file that said this:
"Carl Whitney Carl Whitney (born September 7, 1913 - died July, 1986) was a Negro League baseball Player. In 1942, Whitney played as a reserve outfielder for the Bill "Bojangles" Robinson. He is interred in the Calvary Cemetery in St. Louis, Missouri."
There just doesn't seem like enough to justify an article. It does, however, raise a good question best discussed elsewhere: What is the notability of the Negro League? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidatio (talk • contribs)
- Then, if we want to follow that train of thought, I will agree with a delete under the logic that we cannot verify he ever existed; not under the logic that he was a Negro League baseball player.Ravenmasterq 03:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I personally not convinced that a backup Negro League baseball player is notable. If there is some good sources out there, (can't find none online, or in the New York Times archives) than maybe it could be kept, other than that it fails WP:V Jaranda wat's sup 03:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Dunno. Please don't accuse me of being hypocritical, but I am not sure what to do with Negro Leaguers. Per Ravenmasterq and Spanneraol, in a certain way they were the "top professional league in his country". They were in the top professional league for African-Americans. Plenty of Negro Leaguers could have played in the majors at that time, but they were held back because of racism. The Negro Leaguers were screwed then. Should they be screwed again on Wikipedia?--Truest blue 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Notability of Negro leagues players
- I've taken the liberty of opening that discussion at WP Baseball - it seemed the most appropriate place. Perhaps we can reach a consensus on the issue there? (It's at the bottom of the page - I can't seem to get the link to work properly. :-p) We should probably leave the AfD to the specific subject of Mr. Whitney if it can be helped. Sidatio 03:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no third party sites saying anything about this guy. If someone could find anything reliable then he would definitely be notable. He played in the top level of his sport at the time(the Negro League was as far as an African American could get at the time.) as for people who say a back-up is not notable, as long as you were in a professional team and played in at least one game you are notable. Gorkymalorki 03:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: "as long as you were in a professional team and played in at least one game you are notable" Interesting. The same argument many of us use for minor leaguers.Kinston eagle 03:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Negro League players are a complicated case. Before MLB integration, the level of competition in the Negro Leagues was pretty much equivalent to that of MLB, but after integration it quickly deteriorated. Record keeping was spotty (and often contradictory) in the early days, and schedules included numerous exhibitions against local teams of uneven quality, which is a hinderance to the establishment of one centralized listing of statistics. Personally, I would consider almost all pre-integration Negro League players for whom a sufficient documentary trail can be established to be notable. Once we're solidly into the post-integration period, I would tend to treat them as minor league players and only create/keep articles for those who received exceptional recognition of one sort or another. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- As for Mr. Whitney himself: I don't have my copy handy right now, but the GBooks version of The Biographical Encyclopedia of the Negro Baseball Leagues (by James A. Riley) does in fact indicate that there was a Carl Whitney who was a Negro League ballplayer. As such, I would be inclined to Keep this article and encourage sourcing/expansion of it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hit bull, win steak if you could cite that it would really help out in keeping this article. As of right now I think the main thing hurting this article is any kind of third party citation. I think the argument of negro league players is better dealt with in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Notability of Negro leagues players, not in WP:AFD. Gorkymalorki 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't have the book with me; I loaned my copy to a guy who's out of town right now. If you want to track one down, the ISBN is 0786709596. It's fairly easy to find in libraries/bookstores. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you do, Whitney's entry is on page 837 of the current edition. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I don't have the book with me; I loaned my copy to a guy who's out of town right now. If you want to track one down, the ISBN is 0786709596. It's fairly easy to find in libraries/bookstores. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hit bull, win steak if you could cite that it would really help out in keeping this article. As of right now I think the main thing hurting this article is any kind of third party citation. I think the argument of negro league players is better dealt with in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Notability of Negro leagues players, not in WP:AFD. Gorkymalorki 03:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He played in a fully professional league so he meets WP:BIO. LukeHoC 02:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, can't see how this meets WP:V, among others. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Armando Galarraga
Non-notable minor league player, per WP:BASEBALL. Truest blue 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 00:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Truest blue 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom, but recreate if he plays in a major league game.--Fabrictramp 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO/WP:BASEBALL as a non-notable player NOW, but with no bias against recreation at an appropriate time (so no G4). Giggy Talk | Review 01:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice against re-creation in case he gets called up to The Show. Realkyhick 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Plays in a "fully professional league" per WP:BIO. Again, would like to remark that WP:BIO allows for inclusion of minor league players.. WP:BASEBALL is overly restrictive above Wiki policies. Spanneraol 01:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete until he shows up in the majors. Is he related to Andres by any chance?Ravenmasterq 02:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Galarraga was a 2005 California League All-Star[37], which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor league player, as is his presence on a 40-man roster. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: despite what Spanneraol says, minor league baseball isn't fully professional. Nyttend 17:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment They are paid for their service.. thus they are professionals. Spanneraol 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, what? Minor league players aren't making kajillions of dollars, but they're at least as "fully professional" as any other worker who makes $20-30k a year. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete until he either reaches the majors, sets some minor league record, becomes a hot prospect (or flame-out) or achieves some notability outside of baseball; non-encyclopedic at the moment. I do not see the benefit from featuring run-of-the-mill minor leagers of any sport; we are not a prospectus and the editor who created the article before the subject was a "big name" shall receive no profit from it - this could lead to frivolous chest-thumping in the topic's circle. How do you tell if a player is a notable "hot prospect" or not, well, AfD is a good start, and this guy ain't got it.--Old Hoss 21:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't understand your statement.. how does someone "profit" off an article? I challenge you to explain what is the harm in featuring "run of the mill" minor leaguers? Wiki should be the "one-stop" source for all knowledge... If someone wants to look up a minor leaguer.. they should be able to. If someone wants to take the time to type up articles on minor league players, what is wrong with that? Who does it harm? If you dont want to read about them.. doesnt mean others don't want to... Wiki is not running out of server space. Spanneraol 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete he didn't play in the majors. If he is related to the Big Cat (Andres), maybe we can possibly merge it there.--JForget 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Caknuck 00:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Madahoochi
Appears to be a non-notable jam band. Being named "best jam band" by a local paper isn't really enough to meet WP:BAND. IrishGuy talk 00:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that might be the case. I was just adding some things and I don't know anything about the band. So if you think it should be deleted, I'm fine with it. Me5000 00:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable group. And brownie points to the author for keeping their cool. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable band. Oysterguitarist 01:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - A7 - No assertion of notability. Tagged. Giggy Talk | Review 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted (A7). No prejudice to re-creation, but certainly no notability asserted here. ELIMINATORJR 00:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tim Storey
Non-notable motivational speaker. This article reads like it was written by him or his PR man. No independent sources, no verification. Contested prod. Realkyhick 00:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The article's tone is promotional. It reflects a WP:COI by Mrshaunsmith (talk · contribs). Shalom Hello 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, numerous questions of notability, and hinting at notability doesn't do it. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cap'n Jaspers
Appears to be a local restaurant with nothing to establish or even assert notability. Totally unsourced, and this appears to be a single establishment and not a chain. Opted not to speedy since it has been here before. Coredesat 23:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, it's unsourced, but sources do exist; google reports over a thousand hits. Yes, the article currently has no assertion of notability, but the restaurant's founder seems notable enough, at least locally (see this obituary)
- more notable than the thousands of high schools we have articles about.The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia exist. That they aren't yet in the article isn't a basis for deletion. -Amatulic 00:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)- Then write an article on the founder; if the founder is notable, it doesn't confer notability to the establishment. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at several google links, it appears that the restaurant is a major source of the founder's notability, and is a notable fixture in its locale. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Improvement will take time because the article's contributors seem to edit it rarely, so this AfD won't hurry up the process unless you wish to do the work. -Amatulic 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that suggest this meets WP:ORG, then? That's the real question here. At best this would be merged to an article on the founder. --Coredesat 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't looked specifically for such sources; I only just found out about this article. The sources I see indicate that Cap'n Jasper's is the central gathering place in Plymouth (the Washington Post hints at it), and apparently it's a sort of historical site in the middle of an historical district of Plymouth, although the sources I've found so far are blogs and tourist information. There are strong assertions of notability here, written by a local, but not sure how acceptable that source would be. -Amatulic 02:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have sources that suggest this meets WP:ORG, then? That's the real question here. At best this would be merged to an article on the founder. --Coredesat 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at several google links, it appears that the restaurant is a major source of the founder's notability, and is a notable fixture in its locale. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Improvement will take time because the article's contributors seem to edit it rarely, so this AfD won't hurry up the process unless you wish to do the work. -Amatulic 00:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Then write an article on the founder; if the founder is notable, it doesn't confer notability to the establishment. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Coredesat 00:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unless some sources can be found. I'll keep an open mind on this. Realkyhick 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources are added. Oysterguitarist 00:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The amount of Google hits has nothing to do with Notability, it is just a common misconception. Please read WP:GHITS As for the two article that Amatulic Pointed out, one of them is not credible, and the washington post article has nothing to do with the place, that is just where the interview seems to be taking place. Gorkymalorki 02:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable local restaurant. Keb25 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nice restaurant, great seafood no doubt, but do we need a Wikipedia article about every nice place to go out to eat? Mandsford 18:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability highly questionable. Perhaps better for Wikitravel? Stifle (talk) 14:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete While it asserts notability, it fails to reference these assertations. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wintermute (band)
Recreated speedy. No doubt this band are on way to notability, but they're not there yet. Played a few gigs, won a competition to play at the Leeds/Reading Festival, but none of this hits WP:BAND. Feel free to disagree! ELIMINATORJR 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Non-notable band. Realkyhick 01:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable band. Oysterguitarist 03:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If Wikipedia deletes everything because it's simply not popular enough, what distinguishes wikipedia from the mainstream encyclopedias, besides its obvious lack of credibility? Basically, I just don't understand how the most ambitious information-gathering project in the world could possibly treat more information as a bad thing. It makes no sense. But hey, keep deleting information. That won't piss people off at all... </sarcasm>. I come to wikipedia specifically to find information that isn't plastered all over the world. If you keep deleting it, you're really doing yourselves a major disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.170.117 (talk • contribs) 2007-08-03t03:50:40z
- You might want to read WP:N and WP:NOT#IINFO. --B. Wolterding 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia, no reliable published sources. -- Jeandré, 2007-08-03t11:31z
- Speedy delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, delete; I find some discussion of them with regards to the contest, but it looks like a local battle-of-the-bands type thing and I don't think it'd meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Looks like the band's building some steam, though, so no prejudice towards recreation when they've got more buzz, and an album out. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is a lack of info there which would justify notability however it does not meet speedy criteria though just because it is nn.--JForget 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete—They had a national tour of the UK, but WP:MUSIC asks that there be coverage in reliable sources, which are not forthcoming. [38] does not quite qualify. --Paul Erik 06:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" WP:MUSIC. C4 has been met with the national tour. Article definitely needs some work though.spazure (contribs) 09:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Claims notability which is enought for it to escape a speedy, but the claim isn't backed up by citations or references, which would be necessary at a minimum for a keep. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Looks improvable, please source. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pale Force
I'm a fan of this myself, but all it really consists of is plot summaries and unencyclopedic lists. — Malcolm (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Given the subject, I believe Wite-Out might be appropriate. Realkyhick 01:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and add real world commentary to the plot summaries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve. --Belovedfreak 15:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notability seems valid. More sources would be nice. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above, it looks good. BTW, I think it's a stupid show. Bearian 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barry Paskin
Non-notable comedian - it seems as if this guy's only claim to fame is that he played the 2005 World Series of Poker and appeared on a couple of the episodes on ESPN. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The only other thing I could find "interesting" about this guy is the BBC threatened (note:threatened) to sue him seven years ago after he bought the domain name bbc.co.uk.--Sethacus 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom et al. Bearian 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Sorry, but while the subject of the article is interesting, the article is not compelling enough nor notable enough for Encyclopedia inclusion. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rhain Davis
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. 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 by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
While he has been in the news today, in two to three weeks he'll be forgotten about until such time as he moves from the 9 year old camp at United to the reserves or the full team. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This person fails the notability requirements for football players on wikipedia. While it's an extraordinary news feature, wikipedia is an encyclopedia...not a collection of current event news articles. Batman2005 06:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a news source Gorkymalorki 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete I disagree. We have extensive coverage of other news events on Wikipedia. This boy is an example of the differing trends in soccer and is therefore important. Joebloggsy 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, the boy is an example of the fact that teams can sign 9 year olds to their club. Nothing more. Just because this one was featured on youtube prior to being signed does not make him any more notable than any other player. The fact that the press did stories about it simply means that he's a news topic...which is not what wikipedia is about. Batman2005 13:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Has not played a game in a fully-professional league. Newsworthy ≠ Encyclopedia-worthy. Number 57 08:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment for info, previous similar AfDs here and here both resulted in deletions ChrisTheDude 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fair enough this kid has been in the news but its not as if he's going to be reported on regularly from now on. It's only because of the over-zealous media, and the advent of YouTube, that he got so much coverage. Obviously he doesn't meet the criteria for football players. Come back in seven years and maybe an article will be worthwhile then. Bigmike 09:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Now that all the news programmes have finished filling their "and finally...." slots for a day, this kid will not be reported on by the media for at least another seven or eight years..... ChrisTheDude 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If, by "and finally," you mean the front page of The Sun? Matt Fitzpatrick 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, due to his popularity on the internet, which is the main reason he made front page news, I believe he is an Internet phenomenon. Englishrose 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He's not an internet phenomenon, the only reason he's known on the internet is because he's young and he has been contacted by Manchester United F.C... but an internet phenomenon is, like the article says, a catchphrase or concept, like "O RLY" and "all your base are belong to us" - Simeon87 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply, not true. An Internet phenomenon includes people. The likes of Peter Oakley due to his popularity on YouTube have become one, I believe that he has become an Internet phenomenon in the same way. Englishrose 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- ReplyAlso, before signing for Man U he had 3 million viewers[39] that for me suggests he is an Internet phenomenon. Englishrose 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The source, written AFTER he signed with United, says that at current he has 3 million viewers, meaning that a significant portion of those viewers came after he signed with United and people were told of a youtube.com video. Batman2005 21:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- How he became an internet phenomenon is irrelevant. The fact is that he is an internet phenomenon. His video has had more views than any of geriatric1927’s videos, one of the biggest internet phenomenon who in turn has his own wikipedia articles that has survived. Just for the record, his video had already been viewed by 800,000 before he signed for Man U. Englishrose 22:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's entirely relevant. He became, what you call, an internet phenomenon ONLY because his story was featured in a NEWS ARTICLE. People read the article then went to the youtube site to look at the video. Had there been no news article, there would be no 3 million views. Simply put, the kid DOES NOT meet the requirements to retain an article on wikipedia. Batman2005 23:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- ReplyAlso, before signing for Man U he had 3 million viewers[39] that for me suggests he is an Internet phenomenon. Englishrose 16:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply, not true. An Internet phenomenon includes people. The likes of Peter Oakley due to his popularity on YouTube have become one, I believe that he has become an Internet phenomenon in the same way. Englishrose 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment He's not an internet phenomenon, the only reason he's known on the internet is because he's young and he has been contacted by Manchester United F.C... but an internet phenomenon is, like the article says, a catchphrase or concept, like "O RLY" and "all your base are belong to us" - Simeon87 11:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, y delete??? joel123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.129.44 (talk • contribs) — 144.137.129.44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - we don't have articles on reserve/youth team players until they play their first professional game, much less a 9-year old. - fchd 11:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 12:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable bio and also a vanity article. Keb25 13:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's a "vanity article." He has achieved a small amount of fame due to the manner in which he was signed by United. I just think the creator rushed into making a page without understanding notability guidelines. Batman2005 13:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Like any other sportsman, he gets his article when he plays for the first team. Nick mallory 13:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. there are loads of articles on players who've never kicked a ball for a first team. They've just slipped into wiki without being seen: e.g. see links here, here, here, here, here, and here among many other places. See also Category:Reserve team football. I'd say the vast majority of those people linked in those articles are totally unworthy of encyclopedia articles, esp. as loads of the info cannot be verified, e.g. how can any wikipedians verify the info in articles such as Sean Anderson and Ben Amos?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Those two should go too. WP:BIO does state that players who are considered part of the recognised first team squad at a large club but have yet to make their debut can have an article, but Anderson and Amos don't fit into that category, and Davis certainly doesn't ChrisTheDude 15:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. there are loads of articles on players who've never kicked a ball for a first team. They've just slipped into wiki without being seen: e.g. see links here, here, here, here, here, and here among many other places. See also Category:Reserve team football. I'd say the vast majority of those people linked in those articles are totally unworthy of encyclopedia articles, esp. as loads of the info cannot be verified, e.g. how can any wikipedians verify the info in articles such as Sean Anderson and Ben Amos?! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - doesn't actually play for the first team. So therefore, no. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete This boy is an internet phenom like the star wars kid, or the numa numa kid. Its just that his talent was posted on youtube this time. We all are curious about teen phenoms and their rise to the professional soccer world. 208.177.144.102 18:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly a recentism case. Not a notable sportsman yet, not a notable Internet phenomenon as well. --Angelo 20:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I think the page should remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.167.153.28 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 3 August 2007.
- Do you have a reason which would be in accordance with any rule or standard on wikipedia? If not, then "it should remain" simply because you want it to...isn't good enough. Batman2005 21:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per fchd's reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
STRONG DELETE - If panos and juan carlos chera dont get a article, then neither does this guy. Portillo 08:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I have seen the video and he looks good for a kid his age. However, at the moment he has won attention for one thing which may be short lived. If he plays for Manchester United or Australia or a professional team, he will then be notable. Tiger Woods appeared on the Mike Douglas show at the age of two putting against Bob Hope but he wasn't notable by Wikipedia standards until he started winning tournaments. The same applies to Rhain Davis. Capitalistroadster 02:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This kid seems to have become known primarily for being signed by Manchester United at the age of nine. I am doubtful that the video would come to such prominence without that. He may have caught the eye briefly but I see no evidence of long-term historical notability here. WP:NOT#NEWS --Malcolmxl5 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Also dont think there is any historic notability to this kid. Maybe if he ever makes it to the highest professional level, he'll be notable Corpx 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Definite recentism, I bet not too many people will remember who this kid is in a couple of weeks. Canuck85 12:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep You are right, people may not remember him later. However he has been listed as a child prodigy and people will come here to find out about him in the future, whether he makes it or not so that they can remember him. crazydudeman66 4 Aug 2007 15:58
- Reply We don't keep articles just because somebody called him a child prodigy. We keep articles which meet certain criteria decided upon by the community it large. If people in the future wish to remember this child there will no doubt be archived news articles about how he was signed to the United Academy. Batman2005 18:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Recentism and hype. Curiously enough, the video itself does not actually indicate anything special in the grand scheme of things, just favorable highlights of one kid's playing skills against other 9 year olds hyped up because people want to believe there will one day be an English Maradona. Agree he'll be forgotten in a few weeks. Reconsider if and when he starts playing for a professional club. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete He does not satisfy the general notability guidelines (i.e., has not played at the highest professional level) and does not appear to warrant a deviation simply because of a recent, high level of current interest and coverage. Jogurney 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Per WP:BIO, "failure to meet the criteria," which, for athletes, includes competition "in a fully professional league" or "at the highest level in amateur sports," "is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." This is an awkward criteria to apply, as the difference between professionals and amateurs in international football is not as clear as in American sports. Further, every footballer in the article about Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy Squad is already listed and wikilinked. When Davis is added to the list upon manutd.com's next content update, why must we leave him redlinked, or start his article over from scratch? Matt Fitzpatrick 04:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply You're wrong. The players in the Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy Squad article are not the 30+ kids signed every year. They are inherently more notable because they play for a reserve team, or have been called into youth national teams. Being one of 30 kids to sign to a club, an occurrence which takes place every year...isn't notable. Batman2005 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per Matt Fitzpatrick Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete they did not sign him to their club--which would have been very notable. they admitted him as one of the "30 nine year olds every year" they admit to their training camp. No more notable than any other footballer his age in the group. The article continues, that many of them eventually become professional. Then will be the time for an article DGG (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notability is clearly established by the sources. Everyking 08:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Wrong. Simply having stories written about you doesn't make you notable. It makes you talked about. Notability ISN'T established by the sources, it just talks about him being signed. His notability it judged based on his footballing, and he doesn't fit the requirements at this time. Batman2005 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is demonstrated by the existence of the sources. WP:N. Everyking 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, an obituary is a newspaper source, but does not indicate notability. Feature stories are done in Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine about youth athletes...but they're not notable enough for inclusion. The kid doesn't meet the requirements, which is what an overwhelming number of people on here agree with. Batman2005 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I linked you to the policy; it's stated plain and simple. Multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. You may have your own personal definition of notability, but we're not deciding based on that. Everyking 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia. The child doesn't meet the requirement. Again, just because a few newspapers did a story doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. There are literally hundreds of stories each day with multiple papers doing stories that don't get mentioned here. The kid is a footballer, he fails the requirements for a footballer to have an article. This isn't hard to understand.Batman2005 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia" We're not, we are dedicing whether this article should be deleted under the current notability guidlines. A discussion on changing the notability guidelines is not for this AFD.Englishrose 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Uh...that's not what I said, but good job trying to put words in my mouth. We judge all articles for notability based on the same standard. Football players are all judged on the same standard, Politicians are all judged on the same standard, Musicians are all judged on the same standard, etc, etc, etc, etc. As a footballer, this kid fails miserably to meet the requirements. I fail to see how you can argue that, and I fail to see how it can't be glaringly obvious to you. Under the current notability guidelines...this article fails, and does so miserably. An overwhelming number of people on this page agree with me, only like...3 people seem to think otherwise, it's gotten funny. Batman2005 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- "We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia" We're not, we are dedicing whether this article should be deleted under the current notability guidlines. A discussion on changing the notability guidelines is not for this AFD.Englishrose 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- We're deciding based on notability as a standard for every article on wikipedia. The child doesn't meet the requirement. Again, just because a few newspapers did a story doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. There are literally hundreds of stories each day with multiple papers doing stories that don't get mentioned here. The kid is a footballer, he fails the requirements for a footballer to have an article. This isn't hard to understand.Batman2005 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I linked you to the policy; it's stated plain and simple. Multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. You may have your own personal definition of notability, but we're not deciding based on that. Everyking 03:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, an obituary is a newspaper source, but does not indicate notability. Feature stories are done in Sports Illustrated and ESPN the magazine about youth athletes...but they're not notable enough for inclusion. The kid doesn't meet the requirements, which is what an overwhelming number of people on here agree with. Batman2005 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is demonstrated by the existence of the sources. WP:N. Everyking 03:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment After slogging through The Sun's and others' similar news reports, I began starting to change my mind. Superficial, poorly researched, poorly attributed reports, even in MSM, are still superficial, still poorly researched, and still poorly attributed. Caroline Cheese's article for the BBC, though, is the light at the end of this journalistic tunnel. Her in-depth research presents the clearest picture of how sports experts feel about Davis: decidedly ambivalent. Do experts seeing lots of potential, but no guarantees, plus a YouTube phenomenon, add up to Wikipedia notability standards? It's going to be a closer call than I first thought. Matt Fitzpatrick 04:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Wrong. Simply having stories written about you doesn't make you notable. It makes you talked about. Notability ISN'T established by the sources, it just talks about him being signed. His notability it judged based on his footballing, and he doesn't fit the requirements at this time. Batman2005 00:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per DGG and others. An internet meme at best. Nobody will know who he is in a month's time. 213.79.36.48 13:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all the media outlets are re-presenting the same story - he is not the subject of multiple work from independent sources. If he hits the news again in an independent manner then we would have multiple independent sources - and it would be worthwhile having an article about him then. But not while everyone keeps spouting exactly the same press release from MU.Garrie 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- They are not the same story. Look at them. They are different stories covering the same thing. Everyking 22:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete (fails WP:RS, WP:AUTO, passes WP:SNOW) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jamie Masse
College political activist of purely local notability; presumably WP:AUTO. He previously posted a POV essay on Canadian health care at the same title, which is why there's a prior nomination, but since that was an essay and this is an article about him, this isn't a G4. Delete. Bearcat 06:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable sources. 147 ghits and not a single substantial one in the bunch. And, per this (check out the screenname),WP:AUTO.--Sethacus 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I think so.--Bhzd 09:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable college kid. Nick mallory 13:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable vanity bio. Keb25 13:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Fang Aili talk 13:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:COI Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:AUTOlicious, lacks notability and references. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete random school kid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Canuckle 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per David Schanich. GreenJoe 01:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per David Schaich. --Paul Erik 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Userfy it. Bearian 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- But he writes for his student newspaper! And he's amember of several organizations! How can he not be notable? Oh wait, he's nobody. Delete. Ground Zero | t 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dave hickman
Local-only DJ, suspect notability Will (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No verifiable cited or Google sources available, no claims of notability (being 'well known' for liking a sports team hardly counts), fails WP:BIO. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above: Fails WP:BIO. Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - fails bio. Nominated a seemingly related article for speedy yesterday. Onnaghar (speak.work) 16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Will (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Billy al bengston
lving person; unsourced;, suspect notability Will (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding more sources, please do not delete this page without letting me know how to fix it first. Patriciafauregallery 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: He is a significant artist associated with the development of Pop Art in California in the late 1950s/early 1960s. I'll add some sources to the article - it won't be difficult, he features in a number of books on the subject.--Ethicoaestheticist 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Ethicoaestheticist 00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Suggest withdrawal of nom and speedy keep. Work is in the Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), LACMA, MOCA (Los Angeles), MOMA (New York), Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (New York), The Corcoran Gallery of Art (Washington, D.C.), and the Whitney Museum of American Art (New York). If it's unsourced, put a verify tag on it first before AfD. "The painter Billy Al Bengston, one of the Los Angeles car culture stars of the 1960's and 70's, was among the first to ditch traditional oil paint on canvas, opting instead for sprayed layers of automobile lacquer on aluminum in soft colors, achieving a highly reflective, translucent surface. He was also among the first to assert an artistic identity in terms of the low pursuit of macho sports."New York Times. Tyrenius 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Bengston has been an important mainstay of the Los Angeles art scene since the early 1960s and he continues to be a notable artist. His work is widely known in professional art circles, and taught. - Modernist 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Lots of references to establish notability. --NeilN 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, WP:BIO issues and consensus (see discussion this page) ~Kylu (u|t) 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Physical appearance of Michael Jackson
Speedy Delete! Oh. My. God. Full of points of view, article has one source-and Oprah interview from years ago. This fails WP:N, suerly any worthy infomation (if there is any) can be merged with Michael Jackson? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Total WP:BLP nightmare. wikipediatrix 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this article is about a subject which has received extensive media coverage, and is notable. Unsourced material can be removed. The Evil Spartan 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Arguably, but that doesn't make the subject vast enough for its own page. Any noteable and sourced content can be merged into Michael Jackson. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- More importantly, if "extensive media coverage" were enough to justify such an article, then we could easily make a case for Physical appearance of Tammy Faye Messner, Physical appearance of Kirstie Alley, Physical appearance of Mickey Rourke, Physical appearance of Madonna, Physical appearance of Mike Tyson, Physical appearance of Britney Spears, etc., etc. Gossip doesn't equal news, and neither equal encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. The physical appearance of Michael Jackson is far more notable than the physical appearance of these other subjects: it receives much more coverage, yes, even than these people. The difference with those people is those are passing appearances, and Michael Jackson's has been of note for years. Besides, I believe your argument is, exactly WP:WAX. The Evil Spartan 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You say it's notable, but saying doesn't make it so. And WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. My deletion criteria is that it's a non-notable subject proven by its lack of reliable sources, an inherent WP:BLP violation, and probably a POV/content fork as well. wikipediatrix 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. What? No offense, but those two sound like the same thing. And, are you really claiming there are no reliable sources on this issue? I find 198 google news hits right now alone, and 33,900 articles in the google news archive. Even if only 1/3 of those were on topic, are you still going to claim that 10000 articles from sources like the Washington Post, BBC, ABC news, etc. (the list goes on) leaves a lack of reliable sources? I can't fathom why you're trying to use this argument. 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not going to argue with you anymore. Anyone who peruses those Google news hits you mention can decide for themselves the usefulness of them in a properly encyclopedic context. wikipediatrix 20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. What? No offense, but those two sound like the same thing. And, are you really claiming there are no reliable sources on this issue? I find 198 google news hits right now alone, and 33,900 articles in the google news archive. Even if only 1/3 of those were on topic, are you still going to claim that 10000 articles from sources like the Washington Post, BBC, ABC news, etc. (the list goes on) leaves a lack of reliable sources? I can't fathom why you're trying to use this argument. 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- You say it's notable, but saying doesn't make it so. And WP:WAX is for someone who uses the other articles (or lack thereof) as deletion criteria. I'm not. I simply pointed out the parallels to illustrate my point that editorials aren't reliable sources. My deletion criteria is that it's a non-notable subject proven by its lack of reliable sources, an inherent WP:BLP violation, and probably a POV/content fork as well. wikipediatrix 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite. The physical appearance of Michael Jackson is far more notable than the physical appearance of these other subjects: it receives much more coverage, yes, even than these people. The difference with those people is those are passing appearances, and Michael Jackson's has been of note for years. Besides, I believe your argument is, exactly WP:WAX. The Evil Spartan 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- More importantly, if "extensive media coverage" were enough to justify such an article, then we could easily make a case for Physical appearance of Tammy Faye Messner, Physical appearance of Kirstie Alley, Physical appearance of Mickey Rourke, Physical appearance of Madonna, Physical appearance of Mike Tyson, Physical appearance of Britney Spears, etc., etc. Gossip doesn't equal news, and neither equal encyclopedic. wikipediatrix 19:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Everything in this article is already in Michael_Jackson#Physical_appearance. --Targeman 21:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, already covered in the main article on Jacko. Kill this now. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All the useful information is already in the main article, where it is much better covered and sourced. This fork adds nothing to it. Iain99 21:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete any encyclopedic treatment of this sensitive topic can, and should, be done on the main page. --Haemo 22:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per non - awful article too I note, I hade hoped to at least be able to have a good laugh. Bigdaddy1981 22:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think it is suitable to have a separate article about that especially since it appears there is OR.--JForget 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; it's original research if nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coren (talk • contribs)
- Delete. This info, any of it that is considered encyclopedic, should be in the main article. Seems like an implausible redirect discussed in R3. Useight 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete looks like it already has a section in the main article, as it should. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Already merged, as it has too little content to exist separately. However, if it were a lot longer, and written neutrally, with citations, I would support spinning it off, to prevent undue weight in the main article. (By the way, this should redirect to the relevant section, instead of being deleted.) Abeg92contribs 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Surgically merge into one of Michael Jackson's articles. Mandsford 18:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Michael Jackson. Seems to be OR-ish but moreover nothing that should be in a separate article. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, subject has received so much attention that it should be covered in a separate article. Everyking 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 18:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pål Johan Karlsen
Broken nomination by Tony Sandel citing: "nominate for deletion. not notable. autobiography" in the edit summary [40]. I am inclined to agree, as I did in the previous nomination. No substantial improvements have been made since the last AfD that closed as no consensus. IronGargoyle 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Tony Sandel above. IronGargoyle 21:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Published author, which speaks to notability. It's unfortunate that the article is an auto, but while WP:Auto "strongly discourages" autobiographical articles, this is not to be a reason for deletion as the page states. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus," which is a little unusual, since there was only one delete !vote. ◄Zahakiel► 03:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually two delete !votes if you count my previous nomination. IronGargoyle 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The fact that his books have been published by a prestigious publisher (Norway's largest or second largest, I think) should vouch for this author's notability. __meco 07:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless multiple independent reliable sources cited to verify notablity. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per meco.Vice regent 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as a fairly high-profile published author. — xDanielxTalk 22:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete ~Kylu (u|t) 01:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold
- List of fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
I just don't see Wikipedia needing a list like this.--SeizureDog 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, this list was created as a result of this CfD discussion. the wub "?!" 23:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- I remember those cats. They serve even less of a purpose as lists though. I don't think either is needed for Wikipedia.--SeizureDog 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no coverage for "fictional characters who can manipulate ice or cold", hence this List of them lacks notability too. Corpx 04:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can't see any reason to keep this. It's like the "power" to manipulate fire or turn invisible, something that, when you get down to it, is not that imaginative. Time for me to fill the ice tray and manipulate the water into cubes. Mandsford 18:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as listcruft - unencyclopedic/unimportant. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or categorize Perhaps it would be best if the characters were categorized instead? To nom, or anyone here, will List of fictional characters who can manipulate fire, List of fictional characters who can create illusions, List of fictional characters who can manipulate electricity, and List of fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow be marked for deletion also? If so, categorization would be most appropiate in this case. Lord Sesshomaru 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I figured I'd test the waters with this list first before nominating the others (which I only noticed after afd). Your suggestion doesn't work, because as it's been said before, they were categories before being turned into lists. I don't think either is needed.--SeizureDog 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment No article, no category, sounds like a complete loss. Is it against policy or guideline if I were to keep this article in a sub-userpage to continue working on it? This page would be deleted, of course by the way this survey's going, but can I have the page as my own? Or is that a violation of something? I'm also considering that this list can be completely reformatted and looking like the nice superhuman strength article. Any ideas or concerns? Lord Sesshomaru 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not adverse to to idea of having articles on the abilites themselves, but simple lists are crufty.--SeizureDog 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.