Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 12
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. Singularity 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Quantum Improvement Method
Article was created by the main proponent of the method, with few subsequent edits. Non-notable (133 Google results for "Quantum Improvement Method"). Unverifiable, as Mark Profitt's blog (only given reference) does not seem to mention the method by name. Sho Uemura (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Neologism. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Jejune. Herostratus (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No Google Scholar hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:28, 16 December 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 WP:CSD#A7 -- Tonywalton Talk 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joshua Heizer
non-notable person Flibbert (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy-deletion No major published works, no assertions of notability. This should probably have been deleted under {{db-nn}} rather than going to AfD. Improbcat (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, no indication of notability whatsoever. So tagged. Flibbert, it happens all the time, don't sweat it. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 13 December 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 do nothing. Apple pipe is a redirect. Redirections are dealt with at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, rather than here. ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apple pipe
Completing incomplete nomination prior to closing ➔ REDVEЯS likes kittens... and you 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
"Apple pipe" refers to either a particular shape of tobacco pipe or a cannabis pipe carved out of an apple (the fruit). For both of these uses, the article Apple pipe is needlessly specific. Frotz (talk) 03:32, 12 December 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 Merge and redirect to Noztra. non-admin bold closure - Peripitus (Talk) 04:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Mi Manera (Noztra album)
This album has not been released yet (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL), and no sources appear on the page explaining why this future album is notable. Also, written in a very promotional manner. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:56, 13 December 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, consensus is not notable. Davewild (talk) 08:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reed Alexander
Unreferenced, questionable notability, sites don't seem to pass WP:WEB VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: After finding Wikipedia had an article for ICarly I am unsure whether to go through with the deletion debate or not. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I’m sorry this article is about, what . Shoessss | Chat 00:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not even mentioned as a minor character in the iCarly article. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Apparently subject is an actor with 4000 Ghits. First few hits revealed vanity sites but with quick glance I didn't find any RS's. No significant Google News hits. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:39, 16 December 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, G11). BLACKKITE 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Youth Without Borders
Advert Elassint (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as blatant advertising. -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per nom. -Carados (talk) 23:54, 12 December 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 Nomination withdrawn. The only !vote placed was for an older revision; page has since been rewritten per nom's concerns, so the !vote is no longer valid. Nominator has also asked for closure, so here it is, non-admin style. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rage (emotion)
This article appears to consist entirely of unsourced original research. Unless there is some clear justification for a separate article on this topic, it should probably be changed to a simple redirect to anger. Arthur Frayn (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Update: article has now been rewritten to address the problems above. Nomination withdrawn, please close. -- Arthur Frayn (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This lends itself to Wiktionary, which already has it listed . Shoessss | Chat 00:41, 13 December 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 reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Boom PSX N64 USB Adapter
Non-notable piece of hardware. Gets 16 hits on google. Article is basically an instruction manual. Ridernyc (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Too much tech support, not enough real information. Ringo380 (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Fangz of Blood 23:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even after taking a chainsaw to the tech support stuff (already done), the remaining info doesn't demonstrate notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete NN, doesn't even assert. --Jack Merridew 09:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As "PSX N64 USB" this gets 1024 ghits. It appears to be very important to the emulator community. Needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 December 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. John254 00:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] International SOS
All the cited references are linked to the company's own website Ringo380 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Lack of secondary sources is not a reason for deletion, this is an extremely well known company in this field. They are currently in merger talks [1] with smaller firm Control Risks Group. RMHED (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep As it currently is, we likely have an issue under WP:CORP, however, just a brief look through Google gives some hope that secondary/independent sources may be available (I'm searching through now, but my internet connection is getting a little grumpy at the moment). Definitely salvageable provided research turns up something. Aeternitas827 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep based on a minute or two with Google News: 11 press mentions in the last 30 days and 1500+ press mentions using archive search. --A. B. (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy keep as possible bad-faith nomination -- nominator was also the creator of the VIP Air Ambulance article and has few edits outside the these two articles plus the Air ambulance article. Note that I use "bad-faith" here only in the technical sense as it relates to our speedy keep criteria -- not to cast aspersions on the nominator who is very new around here. --A. B. (talk) 17:34, 14 December 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. Singularity 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hackey sack cricket
NFT. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of Reliable sources and, thus, verifiability. It's possible that there is some notability here, but I don't see evidence of it. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For all I know, this sport doesn't exist. It just isn't very good. If I get some evidence that it is anything, like notable, I will withdraw.TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that the external link added here is to an article created a few minutes earlier. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. First of all per WP:NFT. Second, that reference isn't even remotely a reliable source. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:25, 13 December 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 both for the time being. All claims to notability in both articles are local (local awards and recognition). Perhaps, with more time, there will be more significant notability to document in an article on either the company or its founder. Pastordavid (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ken Jurina
A non-notable expert in the field of "online marketing and internet market research." The article says that the subject won a small business award, is a public speaker and does volunteer work. None of these things are particularly notable. The article reads like a resume/self-promotional effort. Watchsmart (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article about the firm founded by Ken Jurina. The article also reads like a self-promotional effort. There are a couple of local media references on Google News, but nothing particularly noteworthy (one is about the firm's Christmas party): Epiar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
As to both of the above nominations Ken Jurina is a notable expert in the field of search engine optimizaion and internet market research. He is requested to speak at every major industry related conference, has (in conjunction with his business partner) pioneered and developed an entirely unique keyword and market research software - so much so that a number of very big brand names in the search sphere have offered to buy Epiar - the company. He is as notable in his specific field as Jill Whalen or any other well known SEO specialists and experts. It would be irresponsible not to include at the very least an entry on the company Epiar if you do wish to remove the personal entry on Ken himself. Lmac-74 —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Lmac-74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Changes needed - Epiar is a fairly notable company in the SEO market, of which Ken Jurina is the president. It does, however, need a re-write without the uppity bias, as well as some decent references (google has a zillion pages of Ken Jurina results, I'm sure there are some). Ringo380 (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Advice gratefully received - I'm sorry about the uppity bias - I'll try to tone it down (without pushing the envelope here - can you give me an example of uppity? No offence taken if its just that my writing style sucks in general.) - I will also go through the google results. Lmac-74 (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- @ Watchsmart and Ringo380 - I've made a few changes. Your input is invaluable to retaining this page, and you both obviously have far more experience than I do. Any fedback gratefully received/ Lmac-74 (talk) 3:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I fail to see the notability here. The article points out the following facts about Jurina: He founded Epiar, he is a public speaker and that he is involved in some trade organizations. What is notable about these things? That he has some "associates" in the same field is not notable either. His company is not notable either. The article states that it has developed "proprietary software." So what? Are there are any media references to the software outside of SEO trade publications? The only media coverage you cite is a single article from SEOMoz Watchsmart (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- We've had problems with assessing the notability of SEO people before -- sometimes it's tricky for non-SEO types to assess the reliability of sources and sort the sheep from the goats. Likewise some SEO industry folks come to AfDs and say that "everybody knows Billy Bob" and "he's been blogged about a zillion times" -- not knowing our requirements for notability. Many of our editors that work in SEO have our Search engine optimisation article on their watchlist so I have left a neutrally-worded notice of this AfD at Talk:Search engine optimization. --A. B. (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to form one article, and pluck all the peacock feathers and advertising language. Investigate whether Lmac-74 has a conflict of interest in this matter, and if so, provide clues to that user. - Jehochman Talk 17:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- But are there any reliable sources for these guys that satisfy our notability guidelines? If not, we should delete, not merge.
- See also this article, Keyword Research, which while it covers a notable topic has recently been Epiar-ized by a single purpose editor. --A. B. (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both After fifteen minutes of searching, I can find nothing to demonstrate notability. Searching for "Epiar" gives me more results for a game than this company, and searching for "Epiar marketing" just gives me business/telephone listings. Maybe when this company has achieved something more notable the article can be recreated, but right now neither the founder or the company have done anything to warrant a Wikipedia article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. The SEO community might be insular, but there are still standards for notability, and these subjects appear to fail. Cool Hand Luke 10:18, 23 December 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. Singularity 00:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coastal navigation
I'm fairly certain this article should be deleted - it seems to be an extract from a book, and so may fall under CSD G12 (copyright), failing that it may just be pure gibberish - in the sense of not being a viable WP article in its present form. I'm therefore nominating for deletion CultureDrone (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Reading again, it may actually be a simple case of self advertising for software, but I'll wait for others opinions. CultureDrone (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - when this article first appeared I almost nominated it for CSD but I decided to see what other editors thought. From the creator's user name and the lead section it is some kind of self-promotion. In any case it is certainly not encyclopedic. Also there are no references, hence no verifiability of notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious advertising by or for the author of the book. DGG (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to be advertising -- Whpq (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. --Sharkface217 22:07, 14 December 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 evidence of third-party notice of the individual: not-notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simon Turnbull
This looks to me very much like vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete vanispamcruftisement...god I love that word ! CultureDrone (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO. Person has not been the subject of coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 13:04, 18 December 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 copyright violation. The text about the Canary Islands was a direct copy and past from a copyrighted ("© Roxby Media Ltd") web page. It's fairly certain, from their appearances, that the other portions of the page were copyright violations, too. A bunch of articles stuck end to end does not make an encyclopaedia article, in any case. Uncle G (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ultra peripheral regions
Original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unencyclopedic essay w/ POV. This is almost certainly a copyvio although it may have been changed slightly as the language is not at the highest level throughout. There could be an article on the EU-designated ultra peripheral regions, but this isn't really it. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 12 December 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. Singularity 04:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sky Castle Records
Declined speedy for the tenuous claim to notability of its one known single being the first release of Billy "Crash" Craddock. Dlohcierekim 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one release of one single, and that's it - it died. God rest ye, but not here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, only one release and it went "splut". Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original speedy-tagger. One single does not an encyclopedia article make. --Finngall talk 23:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable label Lugnuts (talk) 08:17, 13 December 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. John254 00:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous (band)
Non-notable band who don't meet WP:BAND. Although they were in the Eurovision Song Contest they only finished 12th. They don't have any officially released albums, they've not toured. Given the name it's virtually impossible to do a decent Google search. WebHamster 22:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep According to the Salvem el món article, it charted #3 in the Spanish hitlists, which satisfies criterion #2. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This band took part in the Eurovision Song Contest (which is
asufficientassertion ofnotability in itself)and charted at #3 in Spain. AecisBrievenbus 23:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There is no verification that the song charted, and WP:BAND stipulates that they should either "win or be placed" in a major competition. They didn't even make the final and finished twelfth so that criterion isn't met. Assertion of notability only wards off a CSD notice, it does not prevent an AfD. There's no demonstration of notability in the article. There's only one independent source listed and that's borderline for meeting WP:RS. --WebHamster 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally they are supposed to have been together since 2004 yet all they have to show for it is 1 album demo, 1 single and a semi-final place at Eurovision. This is not the hallmark of a notable band. --WebHamster 23:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- They were placed in the Eurovision Song Contest. Twelfth in the semi-final, which means a 26th place overall. I withdraw the Spanish #3 for now. AecisBrievenbus 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- My interpretation/understanding of "placed" is second, third or fourth, ie in the final. I'd like to see the result of placing a bet on something to be "placed" and then trying to get paid out on something that came in 12th/26th. --WebHamster 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is that "placed" is by definition vague, and unless we define it clearly (say, only include the top 15 of each ESC), bands like Anonymous will meet the inclusion criteria, even if it's just because the criteria are so broad. As far as the top 3 of the Spanish charts is concerned: it was the PROMUSICAE Top 20. I haven't been able to find the chart itself, since PROMUSICAE appear to have taken old charts offline, but I did find two external sources: ESCToday.com and Eurosong.be. AecisBrievenbus 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- My interpretation/understanding of "placed" is second, third or fourth, ie in the final. I'd like to see the result of placing a bet on something to be "placed" and then trying to get paid out on something that came in 12th/26th. --WebHamster 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- They were placed in the Eurovision Song Contest. Twelfth in the semi-final, which means a 26th place overall. I withdraw the Spanish #3 for now. AecisBrievenbus 23:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- "Placed" as described at dictionary.com in the context it is used in WP:BAND is a verb meaning "To be among those who finish a competition or race, especially to finish second". So its definition isn't as vague as you may suppose. --WebHamster 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is vague in the sense that there's no limit in terms of the position of the participant. Someone who comes 2nd is placed, but so is someone who came 58th. Someone who comes 156th in the general classification of the Tour de France is still placed, even if he's dead last, 5 hours behind the winner. AecisBrievenbus 11:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Placed" as described at dictionary.com in the context it is used in WP:BAND is a verb meaning "To be among those who finish a competition or race, especially to finish second". So its definition isn't as vague as you may suppose. --WebHamster 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Keep. An argument that's often been made in relation to the ESC is that it's sort of a "musical Olympics". This band competed at it - thereby being televised around the world - and recorded the best-yet result for their country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to keep the weasel words out of it, who has made that argument? And who has decided that a "musical Olympics" is no longer a "major music competition"? --WebHamster 01:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I can't find the precise AfD here where someone said it, but I'll keep looking. In relation to your second question, my argument was that because the band competed (and achieved a degree of success) at such a competition, that suggests that it is probably notable, in much the same way as people who compete in major competitions related to their fields tend to be notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- A degree of success? 12th/26th/halfway down the field? I'm sorry if I remain sceptical and somewhat scathing (though not of you personally I might add) of the whole ESC and in particular this 'anonymous' band. This whole article reeks to high-heaven as non-notable. When semantics, hyperbole and vague notions of success and possible references are the main thrust of an article, then that does not strike me as something that is inherently important and/or notable enough for inclusion. They came from the mists of obscurity and it looks like they will return there any time soon. --WebHamster 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- "A degree of success", yes. They finished 12th in a field of 28, which is one thing, and recorded Andorra's best result to date at the Contest (possibly best ever, since rumour has it there won't be an Andorran entry in future). I can understand your scepticism, but the two claims I've made here are both eminently verifiable and suggest notability to me. There's also the fact that they were the first punk outfit to compete on the ESC stage, which may or may not contribute, depending on whether that is a "notable first". The same is true of the fact that this was the first Andorran song not to be monolingually in Catalan. Additionally, in simple terms the band represented their country at a major international event. Why does that not equate to notability? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- A degree of success? 12th/26th/halfway down the field? I'm sorry if I remain sceptical and somewhat scathing (though not of you personally I might add) of the whole ESC and in particular this 'anonymous' band. This whole article reeks to high-heaven as non-notable. When semantics, hyperbole and vague notions of success and possible references are the main thrust of an article, then that does not strike me as something that is inherently important and/or notable enough for inclusion. They came from the mists of obscurity and it looks like they will return there any time soon. --WebHamster 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- One example is this article from The Economist (2002): "ALONG with joining the UN, invitations to the Eurovision song contest (a televised musical Olympics much watched in Europe) signalled that the new countries of post-communist Europe had arrived on the international stage." AecisBrievenbus 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, not so much an "argument" as a hyperbolic neologism used by a newspaper? Even so, regardless of that, when it comes down to it, it is still a "major music competition" as outlined in WP:BAND, and they still came 12th, they still didn't "place" (by the definition used by millions of gamblers the world over). We're still not past the no album releases, one highly pimped single release. No tours, no awards, bugger all decent press by the looks of it. The common-sense codicil of WP:BAND surely must dictate that as far as musicians go these aren't that much above an X-Factor reject? Not the makings of an encyclopaedic article. --WebHamster 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to beat dead horses, but they did place. Twelfth in the semi-final, which is 26th overall. That is a placing in a major competition, because the Eurovision Song Contest is a major competition. Regardless of what "millions of gamblers the world over" make of it. I wouldn't call the term "musical Olympics" a "hyperbolic neologism used by a newspaper", it's more a reliable source attempting to paint a picture for readers who don't know the subject. AecisBrievenbus 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, not so much an "argument" as a hyperbolic neologism used by a newspaper? Even so, regardless of that, when it comes down to it, it is still a "major music competition" as outlined in WP:BAND, and they still came 12th, they still didn't "place" (by the definition used by millions of gamblers the world over). We're still not past the no album releases, one highly pimped single release. No tours, no awards, bugger all decent press by the looks of it. The common-sense codicil of WP:BAND surely must dictate that as far as musicians go these aren't that much above an X-Factor reject? Not the makings of an encyclopaedic article. --WebHamster 02:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- One example is this article from The Economist (2002): "ALONG with joining the UN, invitations to the Eurovision song contest (a televised musical Olympics much watched in Europe) signalled that the new countries of post-communist Europe had arrived on the international stage." AecisBrievenbus 01:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. They did win a major competition: the competition to become Andorra's representative at the Eurovision Song Contest. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 13 December 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. Use by one group does not make the use of a term widespread - and certainly not notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mill centre
PROD tag removed by IP so here we are. Neologism that lacks any indication of notability. In addition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang words. (Also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill(insult)) —Travistalk 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article directly notes its own link to Mill(insult), which is up for AFD, per the nom's note. We aren't Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Mill (Rawr and stuff) 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If the article is accurate (which I do not know), it could be notable. Part of the problem is that the article on The Prince's Trust is a poor one, in that it does not set out much of the work that the Trust is involved in. If the term is in use, it probably ought to be transwikified to the doctionary. On the other hand Mill(insult) should certainly be deleted. That article is almost word for word idetnical to this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 16 December 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, defaulting to keep. A merge can be discussed on the article's talk page without the need of an AfD. Kurykh 04:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Former Maruhage Empire villains
This article is completely WP:OR, cites exactly zero references and is basically gamecruft. Seems completely unnecessary to me and does not belong in an encyclopedia, but in fact, belongs on a game guide Keeper | 76 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in-universe gameguide/plot summary. I'm not even sure what this is since there no introduction. Ridernyc (talk) 23:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: When we decided to split up the articles for all the villains in Bo-bobo (since there were just too many and it was being noticed by other editors), we had to give each one a separate page. I've been the editor trying to keep the page relevant by keeping it the character's use in the story and that's it. Others, though, have been adding every single attack maneuver for these characters and making it more "game like". (all we really need to know is their fist style, personality and how they were defeated) If I can edit away the list of moves and just keep it relevant to the story, then it will be more improved than it is at this time. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- even if you remove the game elements it is nothing more then a plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: if any of the reason for the possible deletion of this thread is for attack names, then most of if not all of it is my fault. But it should not be deleted because it describes all the characters in this specific arc of the series, and is an important resource for fans of the show. It's no worse than character lists for other anime, or TV series. it shouldn't be deleted because it was an important, and relevant arc of the series. If this article should be deleted for stating the information about these characters in this specific arc, then all character list for every single show should be deleted as well, because this article is no better or worse than most of them. And as far as the "zero resources" thing goes, the information stated here can all be found in the corresponding episodes, and manga chapters listed under the characters.LUNI_TUNZ (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: "Gamecruft"? It's not a game. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think that kind of sums up how poorly written the article is. Ridernyc (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It states in the first sentence that it relates to a manga and anime series. (That said, no, it's not exactly a shining example of prose clarity, even after the cleanup so far.) —Quasirandom (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, you're right, it isn't a game. That was an honest mistake and no insult was intended in my nom. I did try to make sense out of the "article", but I didn't have a reference or external link to check any assertions made. So, just plain cruft, not gamecruft, I guess. Keeper | 76 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It states in the first sentence that it relates to a manga and anime series. (That said, no, it's not exactly a shining example of prose clarity, even after the cleanup so far.) —Quasirandom (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into the relevant character list per WP:FICT. Naturally, excising the utterly massive amount of extraneous plot details, superfluous trivia, and original synthesis should be done during the merge. For all the "keep" rationales above, the relevant argument to address is whether the article establishes any real world context, or in other words is notable. Given that this article is a list of a rather specific subset of a type of characters on this show, then it is doubtful that it will ever satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and thus should be merged. It is irrelevant how "important" you feel the article is since the article is meant to conform to the standards set by Wikipedia, not those by the show's fanbase. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- As Sephiroth BCR says, per WP:FICT, it does need to be merged into the relevant character list, with (even more than done so far) trimming. As do, really, all the other villain lists, but they aren't up for discussion here. Given the nature of the series, bounding about through one parody adventure after another, a convincing argument can be made that the parody antagonists as a whole are notable; also, given the sheer number, that merging them into List of characters in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo is untenable; I suggest the merge target be List of villains in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo, leaving the short summaries in List of characters in Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo. (And while we're on cleanup issues, I note that per the style guideline in WP:SS, those characters with separate articles also need short, potted summaries in the list of characters that links to them. But I digress.) Along the way, adding citations to reviews that comment on the parodic nature of the series and the characters. —Quasirandom (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Given the nature of the series, which goes through villains/opponents as quickly as someone with sinus drainage goes threw Kleenexes, I seriously doubt we need to document every character that ever appears in the series. This article violates WP:NOT#PLOT and I seriously doubt that any real world relevance can be applied added. Essentially, these characters are no better then your typical Monster-of-the-Day that you would see on Power Rangers. --Farix (Talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Using some of the logic I'm seeing for deleting this page, I don't see why all articles referring to fictional TV shows don't get deleted as well, not many fictional works have much impact, or anything at all to do with real life, any and all references needed to prove the validity of the characters is contained in the episodes, and chapters of the series, that are stated under every character's name.LUNI TUNZ (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (and then merge as appropriate) Real impact on whom? Not on me, certainly, but the rest of the world that watches them , writes about them incessantly, and provides the market for them certainly is notable to a great many people using the encyclopedia. Someone like me might even see a reference some day. What people do for entertainment is part of the real world--a very significant part. As for these particular characters, how to merge them best is an editing decision that should be discussed elsewhere.DGG (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I really don't see these as being any more notable then your average monster-of-the-episode that you commonly find in many anime and almost every sentai shows. The only real difference between these villains and other MotEs are is that they appear for multiple episode just to drag out the gages. --Farix (Talk) 22:32, 15 December 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. The arguments of Shirahadasha have carried the consensus in this discussion. Xoloz (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leon Toubin
This is the third time this page has been created by the same user. The first time it was deleted per an AfD because the subject was considered not notable and of local interest only. The second time the article was speedy deleted for being almost the same as the initial article. The main difference between this version and the last deleted version (and the reason I didn't request a speedy delete) is that the subject has now been profiled in a single newspaper article as being one of the last two members of a local Jewish congregation. I believe this still makes him of local interest only and that the subject does not meet the notability requirements. I've asked the author for more information [2] on why this person is more notable than any other church caretaker but have gotten no response. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator because subject is non-notable. I would prefer the article be prevented from being recreated. Karanacs (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge into B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham. Karanacs, thanks for not requesting a speedy delete on this article, so that we can atleast discuss if this article merits some sort of future (either via merge or stand alone etc). This might be a developing work in progress, something that may someday have enough sources to stand on its own; currently, I feel it should be merged into the B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham. ALSO If the article is once again deleted, I am not in favor of preveting it from ever being recreated. Times change. I realize constant "re-creates" tie up editors from other more pressing needs, but it is obvious that this article is somewhat improving over time, and like I said, there may come a time and place where this article might become well sourced enough (and hence notible) to stand on its own.Nsaum75 (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per additional references found in Austin American Statesman recently. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into History of the Jews in Brenham, Texas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as suggested by Brewcrewer. history is a continual problem here, because such people are notable, but within a very small compass. The article suggested for merging seems able to contain the necessary detail. DGG (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
*Going to have to say that I don't see the notability in the roles of this individual. Certainly, I appreciate the sources and respect the hard work done here, but the sources have merely verified that the individual has a non-notable role (outside of the local community). Merge to B'Nai Abraham Synagogue, Brenham for me. Pastordavid (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am swayed by Shirahadasha's comments below. Keep. (btw, I receive the Banner-Press myself, and am quite familiar with it). Pastordavid (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like to clarify that for this person the the local community paper would be the Brenham Banner while the Austin American Statesman is a large newspaper based in the capital. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- weak keep the Austin American Statesman's article establishes notability. Jon513 (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The Austin Statesman article and PBS documentary show sufficient notability to justify a keep. These reliable sources have, rightly or wrongly, looked to Mr. Toubin as an oral history source to represent and explain an entire largely lost culture. We should rely on their independent judgement and not substitute our own ideas of what makes an individual important. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep see Shirahadasha above. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep notability established per Shirahadasha. --MPerel 21:15, 20 December 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. John254 00:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Feederz
Hello I do not believe that this band is important enough for an encyclopedia so I ask that the administrators delete it. Thanks. This is my first edit here logged in, in case that matters on this article. Davidbest (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete, doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC as the label doesn't appear notable. Other associations seem marginal at best. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Keep per kellen's sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Absolutely notable. Sections about them in two SF Weekly articles.[3][4] Featured on Let Them Eat Jellybeans, a notable compilation. Described as "one of the most notorious punk bands to come from the American hardcore punk scene."[5] Citations for them on the web are hard to find since their major period of activity ended in the late 80's. There's even a page about them in polish. KellenT 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure what having a Polish wikipedia article is supposed to mean? Davidbest (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:01, 13 December 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 Merge into Windows 7. Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MinWin
CSD A1 - no context to justify an encyclopedia article. This stub could be merged into the main Windows 7 article without any detriment at all to the Wikipedia Project. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Windows 7: The subject is too dependant on Windows 7 to merit a seperate article. Don't delete it, as it does have context. Josh (talk | contribs) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Architecture of Windows NT. If different Windows kernels don't merit articles, I think it should be included in the broader article. And the information should be included in Windows 7, as well. Althepal (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect. By the test of notability, the subject of the article is deserving enough to warrants its own article (there has been plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources). As for importance, no doubt it is important - it is going to be the kernel of Microsoft Windows, Windows 7 onwards. The only concern here is available information. As it stands now, its barely more than a dicdef. But more info will come as it nears release. So, for now, keep this page as a redirect and merge into Windows 7 (in a separate section). Once information is publicized, it can be spun back out. The technical scope of this subject is to deep to be kept buried inside another article forever. --soum talk 05:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. As soum said, this is the next generation kernel for Windows. The article will develop. Nova SS (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps you're right. I mean, it has just about as much right to be an article as Windows 7 does, right? Althepal (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Like soum said, the merge can be undone when MinWin information not relating to Windows 7 appears, or when Windows 7's MinWin section gets too big. Josh (talk | contribs) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Windows 7. I don't think merging with the NT article would be appropriate; I see no evidence microsoft has declared Windows 7 part of the NT family. Even though it probably has enough sources out there to be notable, considering that it is inseperable from its parent subject (as far as I can tell), there isn't a need for it to have its own article until we have tremendous amounts of verifiable info on it. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 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. Pastordavid (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ki-61 Hien Comparison
Unsourced, original research essay. Merely one contributor's own assessment of this aircraft. Rlandmann (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as interesting but unencyclopedic and apparent original research. These "performance comparisons" is often made without an understanding of the specific standards used. One "maximum speed" may be a maximum speed with the engine at 100%, full load of guns & ammunition, and partial fuel load, while another may be a "maximum speed" of a specifically stripped-down and lightened aircraft with the engine "redlined" briefly and only enough fuel to climb to altitude, make a speed run, and land. For that matter, these types of amateur comparisons often ignore practical considerations (ease of maintenance, ease of training, pilot comfort, etc etc) which in combat might overwhelm the "on paper" performance statistics. <eleland/talkedits> 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Most aircraft articles have a 'comparable aircraft' list in the related content section where readers can draw their own unbiased conclusions. The comparable aircraft list given in the main Ki-61 article does not match those aircraft in this article!?! Nimbus227 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be original research. The article makes a superficial comparison between various fighters which seemed to be linked soley by their engine type.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:09, 13 December 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 Merge. Pastordavid (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prescisive abstraction
This is a term which was used by Charles Peirce in one publication. I Googled the term, just about every link is either an email posted by User:Jon Awbrey, an article posted by him on a wiki, or some reference to this article. It's mentioned in three citaitons on Google Scholar, but only as a passing reference back to Peirce. I don't see any evidence that this phrase has any actual currency, the article is essentially as Awbrey wrote it and Awbrey keeps vandalising it. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. No secondary sources about the term. Maybe a candidate for Wiktionary, but probably not even notable enough there (I don't know what their standards are for neolgisms.) <eleland/talkedits> 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. An important element in Pierce's philosophy of abstractions, and a needful complement to the article on hypostatic abstraction, another bit of Piercean jargon. See this article on Pierce and abstraction; it contains a number of suggestions through which this article might be expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- That would be a good argument for a redirect, but there's no source other than Peirce for the term, and no evidence of anyone other than Peirce using it, other than in discussions of Peirce. That article doesn't even use the phrase prescissive / prescisive abstraction. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Of course it would be expected to be used mainly in comments on Pierce, who is certainly a notable philosopher. But I'm not convinced by the article cited that this is an appropriate separate article. Merge it & hypostatic abstraction & retitle appropriately. DGG (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - No objection to merger. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge, obviously, to Charles Peirce. Which ever user wrote it originally or continued vandalism are both not grounds for deletion and it is a possible search term. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge These are two paragraphs of an article on the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, which we badly need and don't have. Please do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 15 December 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 at the request of the original author, who promised "will repost in the future when artist becomes notable". -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thomas Krueger
Biography of a photographer. Probable autobio. Has been deleted three times under other titles as non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO and is probable vanity page (creator is user:tekphoto which is the guy's initials) - Dumelow (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Karanacs (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable, no references to indicate any otherwise. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment several references have been added. In my oppinion they still do not sufficiently establish notability. They are either not secondary sources, i.e. just answers to questions, without any interpetation or abstraction or just published photographs, or they only very briefly mention the artist. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment having been asked by the articles creator to review my decision I stick by it and agree with Martijn Hoekstra in regards to the references - Dumelow (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all, as NN Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nn; e.g., the "interview" (ref. 4) is hardly about him at all. JJL (talk) 17:45, 13 December 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 Pastordavid (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Calculator.NET
Contested PROD. Non-notable sofware, with no assertion of notability, and no independent reliable sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as complete vanity and WP:COI. The user who created the article also appears to be the author of the software in question, as quoted on their website. Also, software version (although not really that important), appears as v1.0.0.0, therefore it evidently hasn't had enough time to establish any sort of notability, and the software itself isn't looking likely to establish sufficient notability to warrant wikipedia inclusion. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a soapbox. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:45, 13 December 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 Speedy Deletion criterion A7. Anthøny 19:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pro Military Gaming
an online gaming group. There is one source with extended coverage. I am not sure if this is a reliable source per WP:RS. There are claims for more sources in the article, but the sources are not listed. It is a recreation fo an earlier article that was deleted as blatent advertising, but the current content is different. The article now ends with "By: PMG Major J" which implies a conflict of interest per WP:COI Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why Martijn put an afd tag on an article that's already got a db-web speedy deletion tag on it, but if the db tag gets removed, then I'll go with Delete, nothing notable about this forum. Corvus cornixtalk 19:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- By twinkleconflict. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:51, 12 December 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. The section McDonald's#Types_of_restaurants already exists. True, this AfD cannot force anoyone to merge, but any editor is welcome to expand that section now that this article has been deleted. Pastordavid (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] McDonald's restaurants
Virtually has all the same stuff on McDonald's and has a hidden quote that merger is not a option. It's seems pretty redundant to have 2 articles on the same subject without complementing both articles. Also they're no sources on the page whatsoever which in it self can be deleted. I assume this in good faith and I know about WP:Point. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge or split in a more comprehensive manner. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25 12 December 2007 (GMT).
- (ec)Merge verifiable content (or find sources). When I look over the McDonalds article, there is plenty on McDonalds restaurants. It also seems odd to spin off a restaurants article, as I suppose this is by far the most notable part of McDonalds. If the main article should have anything, it should have something on McDonalds restaurants. The main article isn't that long that it will give rise to unsurmountable problems. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to McDonald's Doc Strange (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with McDonalds. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as redundant to McDonalds, then redirect to McDonalds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back. The McDonalds article is long, but this was the wrong section to split off. McDonalds is a restaurant; putting information on its characteristics as a restaurant is about as silly as would be splitting Albert Einstein's scientific career from Albert Einstein - the two subjects are inextricably linked. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- McDonald's is a "restaurant chain" company not a single restaurant. -- Cat chi? 11:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Merge I found the article a few months ago and it was pretty much a directory of every McDonald's that had something other then the standard layout. After removing that list, it doesn't seem to have too much content and could stand to just be merged. SpigotMap 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per other merge arguments. 203.220.13.61 (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since "merge" is not an option, Move any relevant information into the McDonalds article into an appropriate section, and then create a redirect from this article to that section. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- What you describe seems to be Wikipedia:MERGE#Selective_paste_merger, one of the more common forms of merging. I am not quite sure why merger would not be an option, but you may have the wrong idea of merging. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Read the nom's comments, then read this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- and after that, read WP:SARCASM. I honostly believed you were misguided here. Tried my best not to WP:BITE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the comment was blatant enough it would be clear I was kidding around. Sorry. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- If you look right here at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McDonald%27s_restaurants&action=edit right below the AFD template and above the restraunt heading, You would see that someone left a comment about it not being a option. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 00:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I thought the comment was blatant enough it would be clear I was kidding around. Sorry. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- and after that, read WP:SARCASM. I honostly believed you were misguided here. Tried my best not to WP:BITE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Read the nom's comments, then read this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- What you describe seems to be Wikipedia:MERGE#Selective_paste_merger, one of the more common forms of merging. I am not quite sure why merger would not be an option, but you may have the wrong idea of merging. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge w/McDonald's Ctjf83 talk 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obviously merge with McDonald's. There is no need to lose information from the article.--Orthologist (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing here is referenced, therefore it is not worth merging. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is the expansion of McDonald's#Types_of_restaurants. An example for expansion would be how these restaurants differ in shape and menu internationally. For example pork is not served in Turkey a as a menu. Indeed article is poorly sourced at the moment but that can be fixed with not a whole lot of effort. A merge is an editorial decision not enforceable by "Articles for deletion" process. -- Cat chi? 11:55, 18 December 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, due to no reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yehiel Sharabi
Not clear in this article what makes him notable. The only "source" is to the Hebrew Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source. Found nothing in Google using this English transliteration, and only 11 hits when using the Hebrew spelling. Corvus cornixtalk 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nominee. Weirdy Talk 22:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above Ctjf83 talk 21:47, 13 December 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. Singularity 18:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thug Life Army Records
Org that fails to establish notability Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; article is about intentions and goals, but no actual notability is evidenced. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't even really make any real claims to notability. -Drdisque (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- If evidenced then you guys would say it is advertising. The project they have now is gaining alot of respect in the hip hop community and with many hip hop organizations. But as soon as it is mentioned it will be deemed advertising. This label is notabil and is making news. HHRBHHRB (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the speedy on this.
As I indicated at the time, a cursory Google search reveals this is a notable record label (if I understand correctly, they are posthumously releasing Tupac's music?).My suggestion to the above editor, and anyone who wishes to keep the article, is to add pertinent news media references about Thug Life to the article. If editors see that it does have real world notability, I'm sure they will vote to retain. But they need to see that in the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Tupac is an inspiration only, my mistake. Anyway, I am neutral at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I removed the speedy on this.
- If it's making news, then perhaps those news items should be pointed out - Google News turns up one single item, and that's a press release that won't do it for reliable sources. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I speedied it originally. I still think it should have been a speedy. I see nothing especially notable about this label. Dipics (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes and I see now that I was in error in unspeedying it. I misunderstood the Tupac reference. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- First it was trouble with the user name I used for 2 years, so I changed it. Then it was the logo (which there is a licesence for) was not good enough. Seems that delete was a sure thing from the beginning. Delete it, it was that way from the start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HHRB (talk • contribs) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Don't be (too) disappointed if it's deleted. Just remember that if and when this label starts to get some notable press coverage, an article can be created then. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not going to worry about it. To many hoops to jump thru for some of these people. Information is information and for some of these dudes who have no clue to comment on something they appearently have no knowledge of is ludicris. I have had to get people in touch with lawyers so they could ok my edits, I have had to change my user name (I uesed for 2 years) everything someone does here is a waste of time. And I do not have a lot of time to waste. I am actually doing something and not just sitting back guessing. Thanks and no offense to you. HHRB (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) HHRB
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] John Stump
- John Stump (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
- Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- String Quartet No. 556(b) for Strings In A Minor (Motoring Accident) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Atushi Ojisama and Ijigen Waltz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Lament of the Introspective Turnbuckle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
I kind of hate to do this, seeing as I think the Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz is one of the funniest things I've ever seen, but oh well.
John Stump's biography has been tagged for notability since September with no improvements. The text is very short and contains some inappropriate tone ("no official contact with him"). His only compositions are three parody pieces (which as I stated above, I find to be freaking hilarious), but the pieces themselves don't seem notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I also included two related musical satire pieces by different authors. Will the closing admin please make sure all five pages are deleted before closing? The last few times I've done bundle AfDs, only one of the pages got nuked. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all into John Stump. —ScouterSig 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- That still wouldn't take care of the notability issue, which is the main reason I put these pages up for AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hello! I'm new to editing the wiki, so I wonder why this article is to be deleted?
And if it is, will there be a redirect from "the death waltz", to the compositor instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.244.74.89 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The composer, John Stump, doesn't meet our crtieria for biographies of living people. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. The compositions are hilarious but unfortunately not notable, the others in the same category (Satirical Musical Compositions) are "Atushi Ojisama and Ijigen Waltz" by Yamasaki Atusi and "Lament of the Introspective Turnbuckle" by Andrew Fielding: these do not appear to be notable either. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom unless there are some reliable sources brought forward to prove a notable impact on the music scene. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unfortunately. Need to also include the cat and contents of Category:Satirical Musical Compositions. Can we put them up on Wikipedia:Silly Things? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:45, 12 December 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, with a strong suggestion to merge to Inner Sphere. Joyous! | Talk 01:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Successor States
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from BattleTech game articles, and is totally duplicative of them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Inner Sphere. JJL (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no sources on page, gameguide. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- redirect to Succession of states.—Random832 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- No relevance in such redirect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or merge per JJL. Once this grows it will have to be split again, notable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as per JLL. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 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 a long, complicated series of merges to Iraqi diaspora. Consensus here was that if an article consisted solely of content related to the diaspora, it should be in the diaspora article (rather than forking off). After reviewing the articles listed below and the others which were a part of Template:Iraqi diaspora, the following articles have been merged, as their content only related to the Iraqi diaspora:
- Iraqis in Algeria
- Iraqis in Austria
- Iraqis in Bulgaria
- Iraqis in Denmark
- Iraqis in Egypt
- Iraqis in Finland
- Iraqi French
- Iraqis in Germany
- Iraqis in Hungary
- Iraqis in Ireland
- Iraqis in Italy
- Iraqis in Kuwait
- Iraqis in Libya
- Iraqis in Romania
- Iraqis in Russia
- Iraqis in Spain
- Iraqis in Sweden
- Iraqis in Switzerland
- Iraqis in Syria
- Iraqis in Turkey
- Iraqis in United Arab Emirates
- Iraqis in Yemen
Note that this list includes all of the article listed at this AfD. Other articles linked to from the template contained content beyond that relating to the diaspora, and were left alone. If anyone is interested in following the development of this article, head over to Talk:Iraqi diaspora. Tijuana Brass (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Iraqi Armenian
I'm nominating for deletion a bunch of pages from Template:Iraqi diaspora because rather trivial numbers of people (<2,000 in all cases except Switzerland, where it's 5,000) are being described. (The Russia article claims 150,000 Iraqis, but no evidence of this is present in the link supplied, and in any case the subject is temporary workers, who by nature are a transitory lot and not destined for especial notability.) Not only that, but in all these instances it appears these populations have only really existed for about five years, and the great majority seem to be refugees - ie, not citizens, people who will probably return to Iraq in due time. Granted, one or more of these groups could become notable in the future, but as it stands now, that is simply not the case. (See also Talk:Iraqis in Romania for more on the subject.) If users find some of these notable and some not, or want to nominate more from the template, I'm flexible as to which precisely should be deleted, but the point is that at least some of these should go. Biruitorul (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- Iraqis in Austria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Bulgaria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Finland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Hungary (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Ireland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Italy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Romania (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Russia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Iraqis in Switzerland (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Delete: Not that it matters, but I'm Armenian and I still think this page needs to go. It is not notable enough to warrant inclusion. Cheers! --SimpleParadox (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all to Iraqi diaspora. There is a real problem of under-representation with the figures though: the source that many of these articles give is the UNHCR statistics for "recognized refugees, asylum seekers and other Iraqis who may be in need of international protection" - in the case of Germany (not on your list) the figure for Iraqi immigrants is another 60% on top of those who qualify under the UNHCR definition. Would it be an idea to get some input from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Iraq? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure, I think getting in touch with someone from there would be a fine idea. Biruitorul (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all or Merge all into Iraqi diaspora, while clarifying that temporary refugees are not actually diaspora per se. Dahn (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Size of population, manner of arrival, length of residence, or citizenship status are not notability/non-notability criteria. Notability consists of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. "temporary workers, who by nature are a transitory lot and not destined for especial notability" --- quite false, populations of temporary workers can easily become notable, see Iranians in Japan or Mongolians in South Korea. cab (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, fine, let's just say there's no evidence in the article that there are 150,000 Iraqis in Russia. "Multiple instances..." is indeed what the guideline says, but that doesn't mean we can't be flexible and use some common sense either. We have here a bunch of cookie-cutter articles, all of the variety "X country has had Y Iraqi refugees since 2003" - not very illuminating, and considering the transitory nature of refugees, not of much lasting notability either (and we already have a Refugees of Iraq article). Biruitorul (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all into Iraqi diaspora per above points. --Sharkface217 22:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all as suggested, but if retained, Iraqi Armenian should be renamed for consistency Iraqis in Armenia, but it would be much better to lose the lot (by merger). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all, I think merging is a good idea, also per user:Peterkingiron if Iraqi Armenian was retained,It should be renamed in order not to be confused with Armenians in Iraq--Aziz1005 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- You mean in the same way that people keep confusing African Americans with Americans in Africa? :o) --Paularblaster (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge all into Iraqi diaspora. We don't need separate articles. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nom. Despite some merge recommendations no delete, all others keep. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pottsylvania
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Rocky and Bullwinkle TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable. If important to the show, it should be mentioned in one of the main articles (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- keep Kewp (t) 05:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Kewp, per WP:NOREASON, please make constructive arguments as to why you think the article should be kept instead of merely throwing down a vote. This is not a vote, it is a deletion discussion. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge – into the The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show piece. As a stand alone delete. Shoessss | Chat 15:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Twenty Years 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Shoessass 132.205.99.122 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- While you are at it, why don't you delete most of the other Rocky & Bullwinkle articles as well? All of these articles are clearly relics from a previous era of Wikpedia, and should be purged. Anything that isn't published on the internet isn't notable! Everything that isn't notable must be removed from Wikipedia! Well done, citizen! Shoehorn 09:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The purpose of Wikipedia is to have a quality encyclopedia on every topic imaginable, and there are guidelines as to what should be included, such as verifiability and notability which help us make those decisions. And if this article cannot meet those standards, the article shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 16:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- These guidelines appear to be little more than bureaucratic tools that serve to limit the scope of what "every topic" should include. As I said, please purge the site of everything which you do not find to be notable. It won't make WP better, but it will make you feel important. Shoehorn (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Be civil or do not participate. And secondly, the guidelines keep wikipedia from being a gameguide or a fan wiki with no credibility or quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is a laughable statement. If there's one thing Wikipedia is, it's a fan guide to various pop culture icons. Episode and character guides exist for all the popular and cult programs (Buffy, Star trek, and many more obscure). Is this show was Japanese and current, there wouldn't be a hint of anyone suggesting deletion. Shouldn't encyclopedias hold long-term information? 70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you will find, anywhere in print or on the web, reliable sources that will establish the notability of Pottsylvania as a primary subject. There is no motivation for anyone to produce primary source material about this topic. But I also don't think WP benefits from deleting this article or others of like caliber, regardless of guidelines and the bureaucratic behavior they inspire. Without articles like this, the cultural value of WP gradually decreases, until it becomes as rigid and bland as the paper encyclopedias it was intended to replace. Take the long term perspective: in ten years, is someone going to be able to find good information about this topic? Not if you delete this page, because no fansite is going to preserve this information (fansites are among the most transient sites on the web), and no "credible" site is going to show any interest in this topic at all. So go ahead, purge this page, and purge the rest of them. It is the future of WP: a self-aggrandizing resource that has no cultural value whatsoever. Shoehorn (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hear, hear. A very cogent argument. 70.246.118.162 (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Be civil or do not participate. And secondly, the guidelines keep wikipedia from being a gameguide or a fan wiki with no credibility or quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- These guidelines appear to be little more than bureaucratic tools that serve to limit the scope of what "every topic" should include. As I said, please purge the site of everything which you do not find to be notable. It won't make WP better, but it will make you feel important. Shoehorn (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "In-universe" is a guideline on how to and how not to phrase fiction articles, it is not a reason for deletion. The show was 40 years ago, I'm sure if someone starts digging through periodicals they could find dozens of references. See also WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Prove it, there has yet to be any actual demonstration of multiple notable references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. This is one of those articles that just seems so notable, and I am shocked that it has nary a cite. Backing up Squidfryerchef's comments, it seems that time ought to be allowed for editors to find articles or even Nick at Night cites. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well I am "shocked" you would claim it so notable not having produced even ONE reference; please remember wikipedia does not rely on people hunches, especially when the article has been here a long time with no improvement. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Shoessss. It rates a paragaph or two on the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, but no independent notability found out of universe. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep inappropriate use of relisting. Further debate is NOT a substitute for "no consensus" Mandsford (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Bearian. The article likely has notability, but it will require some work. If Judgesurreal777 is so concerned with this article degrading Wikipedia, perhaps instead of requiring everyone else to cite it, he/she can do the leg work. Just a thought. Justin chat 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You see Justin, if I thought that "legwork" would improve the article, I would leave it be for someone who is interested, perhaps like yourself. But I contend that there is no "legwork" to be done, as it has no notability, so there is basically nothing to add to the article in terms of substantive encyclopedic coverage. This is a discussion to show that we can find 2-3 actual notable references so this article should be kept not deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a discussion to find a consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. At this point, at best this is going to end in no consensus. Justin chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Lately, many closers seem to have enough common sense to rule out a horde of keep votes that have nothing to do with policy, and go with the side with the best policy-based argument. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a discussion to find a consensus on whether or not it should be deleted. At this point, at best this is going to end in no consensus. Justin chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I am almost always wrong on these but here goes my thinking anyway. Article dates back to 2003 and is a reference to a fictional place in a 1961 TV show. Google produces 11,500 hits. It has never raised a notability issue in the last 4 years. In my limited thinking, if Wikipedia existed in 1961 we would not be having this discussion as we would have references out the wazoo. Once a subject is deemed notable always notable. I would say based on the age of the subject matter and the age of the article it at one point met the requirements. That said... a merge would also be just fine. GtstrickyTalk or C 20:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per lack of demonstrated notability. I agree that The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show makes a fine merge target. – sgeureka t•c 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is one of those cases where I feel that WP:IAR is somewhat appropriate. Gtstricky and Shoehorn make fairly cogent arguments that (intentionally or unintentionally) support this. The article has a couple of references which seem to confirm the external notability, even if the coverage in those sources isn't "highly significant" in Wikipedia terms. The existing sources for these notability assertions and the assertions themselves hint at a strong potential for coverage in academic works, particularly those examining Cold War media. A cursory internet search doesn't turn up much in this regard, but at the same time, it doesn't turn up much of any source material published before 2000. It is likely that any significant source material is not well-archived online at this point, given the non-recentness of the information. I support the decision to place a tag for citation improvement on the article, as has already been done, but those participating in AfDs need to remember that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, and that AfD is NOT the place to get articles improved. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Alright, just stop right now, this debate is totally not grounded in reality anymore. We are not going to ignore the rules, as there is no reason to, and the article must either assert notability through reliable referencing, or it should be deleted. All these keep votes are just filibustering, and accomplish nothing. Keep votes not backed up with any actual assertion of notability are meaningless, so please stop wasting everyones time. Google searches mean nothing unless there are reliable sources within them, which is totally not a given, and "hinting at potential sources" is equally meaningless without actual proof. It is the responsibility of those who would keep the article to assert notability. Finally, it is absurd the way people voting keep are totally ignoring the nominating concerns and wikipedia policy in making their arguments, so if you are going to participate in this discussion, please look over Wikipedia policies, such as WP:RS, WP:FICTION, WP:WAF. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have made your point very clear many times. The article is now cited. GtstrickyTalk or C 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are these sources reliable? One is clearly a joke page. The TV Acres mention is more plot summary. The part of the Sun Times article outside the pay wall, only mentions Pottsylvania in passing. Article sources should be directly about the subject from a real world perspective (e.g. Pottsylvania as Cold War metaphor). The 3 web articles just don't do it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- What "we" are doing is exactly as WP is intended to do. Find a consensus. The direction on this is clearly leaning towards keep (albeit, it will probably end with no consensus). Suggesting certain policies should be followed, while WP:IGNORE shouldn't is kind of one-sided don't you think? You may not like the results, but it seems you won't be content unless this is deleted, which it seems it clearly won't be. Justin chat 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- When the only policy you can cite to keep an article is "Ignore all rules" you should know your just arguing for argument sake and have no real ground to stand on in terms of policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I can see the point being made by the folks opining delete, the issue of 1960s-era topics is a tough one to deal with because of the lack of archived sources in easy reach. I suspect there are a few sources on this topic, somewhere, but I'm not sure where to even start looking for sources on a fictional country from a cartoon. However, it is a well known name from a popular series, so I'm going to suggest at the least a merge to The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, with a lean towards keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you suspect they exist, please get two or three of them so we will know there are actual references for this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This discussion (scroll along to the following pages) comparing Pottsylvania with the Soviet Union, while not terribly extensive, would seem to indicate a certain amount of attention in reputable sources. Deor (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good, you have one, now find one or two more to satisfy WP:RS which calls for multiple sources, good job, glad to see someone working on it and not just endlessly complaining.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the snippy tone is called for; I was just pointing out a source, and I haven't even registered an opinion in this AfD. I've noticed that folks who feel compelled to respond to every single comment in discussions like this usually wind up on the losing end. Deor (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong, because this is a discussion, I am engaging people who wish to vote in discussion to either establish if they have a valid concern that the article is notable and know of references, or are voting out of pure ignorance, as most do. I also think its hilarious that your attacking me when the "keepers" are the ones who are being a bunch of whiners and thus being criticized, and as you have actually done something, I am not criticizing you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you've been rude and snippy the moment you had anyone disagree with you. You feel the article should be removed, clearly the majority does not agree. Calling the editors here "ignorant" is in itself ignorant, because the basis of your argument is that the article fails to conform to policy, when you are willing ignoring the first (and arguably, most important policy). Nobody here is whining with exception to you. The consensus is pretty clear here, 7 keeps, 2 merges, 2 deletes. I would say that qualifies as a weak keep/no consensus, and no amount of insulting is going to change that. 70.57.166.104 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the snippy tone is called for; I was just pointing out a source, and I haven't even registered an opinion in this AfD. I've noticed that folks who feel compelled to respond to every single comment in discussions like this usually wind up on the losing end. Deor (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wow this has gotten some attention today. Again, the cartoon has been around for 40 years and is still famous, and I presume many references could be found in period magazines. But do they have to cited now to keep the article from deletion? No, that's why we have tags for such things. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does, now, because otherwise it will be deleted for not being notable. There is no "presuming", now is the time for proof. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sources are out there. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=sn&q=pottsylvania&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable. Here's another stack of sources. The only mystery is what happened to the real place of this name in Virginia? Obviously not as enduring as the fictional country :) Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Enough with the random google searches, actually provide a reference, because these are useless unless we can see useable stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no requirement for anyone here to satisfy you. Enough people believe this article can be sourced and written in an encyclopedic way. So perhaps instead of making yourself look absurd in the constant bickering, accept it, and find something new to AFD. Justin chat 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just enough with the random google searches, its just ridiculous pointing to it like there is a source there when you have no idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- There's no requirement for anyone here to satisfy you. Enough people believe this article can be sourced and written in an encyclopedic way. So perhaps instead of making yourself look absurd in the constant bickering, accept it, and find something new to AFD. Justin chat 16:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Enough with the random google searches, actually provide a reference, because these are useless unless we can see useable stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 10:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw thankfully - Ahh, while this pointless and unproductive debate with people who have no grasp of policy was going on, under our noses half a dozen out of universe sources were added, at least a few of which seem reliable, so it has established a limited notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:05, 13 December 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 episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sun Hill Karma
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section consists of original research. – sgeureka t•c 20:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Whilst episodes can be notable, that has to be shown by independent sources and not unreferenced OR as we have here. Nuttah (talk) 17:50, 16 December 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 episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The New Order of Things
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 18:00, 16 December 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. This result is a compromise. Anyone wishing to expand the article to show the episode's noteworthiness may do so. The redirect should not be undone, however, without substantial expansion. Xoloz (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Chief Superintendent's Party
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:51, 18 December 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. This result is a compromise. Anyone wishing to expand the article to show the episode's noteworthiness may do so. The redirect should not be undone, however, without substantial expansion. Xoloz (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Sweet Smell of Failure
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Death of a Cracksman
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). Nothing to merge. – sgeureka t•c 20:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 22 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Burning the Books
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section is unsourced, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:00, 22 December 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 20:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rough in the Afternoon
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). Nothing to merge. – sgeureka t•c 20:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 18 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Drugs Raid
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 10:01, 22 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It's Not Such a Bad Job After All
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuttah (talk • contribs) 10:02, 22 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Long Odds
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content (WP:EPISODE). The notes section reads like unsourced trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:04, 22 December 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 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clutching at Straws (The Bill)
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section is unsourced, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:04, 22 December 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 - there was a clear consensus for deletion. Further, there were no secondary sources attesting to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Funny Ol' Business - Cops and Robbers
non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section reads like trivia and shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Episopdes may be notable, but there is no evidence that this one is. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non notable episode. Episodes, like people, can be notable but just because someone is trying to add them all to Wikipedia the notability requirements are not abandoned. Nuttah (talk) 10:03, 22 December 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 episodes can be notable, there is no evidence that this particular episode is notable. Pastordavid (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Friend in Need
Non-notable tv episode. Ridernyc (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The "Notes" section is mostly triva not relating to the episode itself, and should be removed. After this, article will mostly be a plot summary, which violates WP:EPISODE. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as non-notable episode without much article content. The notes section reads like trivia, so it shouldn't be merged. – sgeureka t•c 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and clean up As episodes can be notable, and it appears that somebody is creating a page for all the episodes of the series. --Sharkface217 22:15, 14 December 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Belvidere Mall
Non-notable mall in Illinois, claims to be first mall in its county but no sources can be found to verify this. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletions. —Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was trivially able to find this developer obit which confirms it was " Lake County's first indoor shopping Mall". I'm not sure if that's enough for inclusion even if citeable; it was never really expanded and is a fairly small mall by today's standards. The virtual tour confirms that it's basically a strip mall with some cul-de-sac hallways. I guess despite the claim I'm leaning delete. --Dhartung | Talk 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Very weak claim to notability. Not likely strong enough to meed WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as it now has 3 cites. Proof now exists in the article that it was the first mall in Lake County, and one of the first in the Chicago area. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bearian -Drdisque (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, I can't read the full text of the CS Times article, so I can't verify if the article indeed states the mall was the first in the county. I'll lean towards keep as long as the claims in the article are supported by the citation. Justin chat 19:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Claims in article and sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 13 December 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 as obviously notable public broadcast company. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cincinnati Public Radio Inc.
Reads like an advertisement--information in articles can easily be split between WGUC and WVXU. Blueboy96 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, at least for now. The article needs a rewrite to focus on the organization. The station information belongs in the articles on the stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The claim that they have roughly 140,000 listeners asserts notability. RFerreira (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- The question for me is "what's in the article that can't be discussed in the station articles?" Not much that I can tell. Blueboy96 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 12 December 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 Placebo Effect (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of fictional tobacco products
Both totally unsourced as well as as a text book violation of WP:NOT. In other words listcruft. There is nothing to show that this should be notable enough for an article, hence it is simply a list of loosely associated items. Per same argument I also nominate
- List of fictional gemstones
EconomicsGuy 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both, as unsourced. There is a fictional jewels category. AnteaterZot 20:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- keep - that's the very point of wiki kernitou talk 07:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete both per nom, better categorised.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete List of fictional tobacco products. not sure about the gemstones (yet). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both as unsourced and non-useful lists. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 12 December 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 merge with Birmingham Nature Centre.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Babu (red panda)
This panda escaped for four days and made the news for a couple more. No lasting impact, no encyclopedic value, however. An interesting story, but ultimately quite trivial. Biruitorul (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep(edit)Merge and redirect to zoo article about Birmingham Nature Centre.(end edit) In the earlier AFD, I argued for keeping the article on the basis that there were several stories in reliable sources with substantial coverage about the escape/capture. Since then, I have revised my views per the essay WP:NOTNEWS to say that just because there was a flurry of coverage of some cute animal, some crime, or some bizarre water cooler story, that news coverage does not automatically entitle the subject to a permanent encyclopedia article. However, in addition to the coverage of the escapes and recaptures, there has been coverage of the animal as an attraction at the zoo independent of the "pandamonium" created by the escape, as shown by some of the "non-escape" coverage disclosed in the Google News archive. A zoo animal is not inherently "non-notable." Edison (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- A fair point, but isn't that 2003 BBC page for children? And I agree, a zoo animal is not inherently non-notable, but there's a big gap between Ling-Ling and Hsing-Hsing (who clearly are notable due to their political connections) and this one. Biruitorul (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Keep: WP:NOTNEWS isn't a guideline, it's an essay. The article clearly passes WP:N and unless WP:NOTNEWS becomes a guideline, the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. Justin chat 19:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- OK, and WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which, I may add, WP:IAR is, so the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. More to the point: many subjects could be encyclopedia articles but aren't -- simply because Babu may happen to fit WP:N doesn't translate into a requirement that we keep an article on him. Our goal is, or should be, to create an intelligent, scholarly work, and including mention of what is in essence a curious but rather trivial incident in my view cheapens rather than enhances the project. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? By pointing out WP:IAR is a policy and WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS aren't you prove MY point. Babu does fit within WP:N. It may not fit within WP:NOTNEWS, but since WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a guideline (or policy), no one has to conform to it. It passes WP:N and it doesn't fail any other notable policy, so my vote stands. WP:NOTNEWS sounds far too much like I don't like it to me. Justin chat 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly. IAR can be invoked in the event that a lesser policy (which all are, except NPOV and DICK) prevents the building of a better encyclopedia. As WP:N is doing that in this case, I'm here to remind us that IAR takes precedence and mandates deletion or at least merger. Biruitorul (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? By pointing out WP:IAR is a policy and WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS aren't you prove MY point. Babu does fit within WP:N. It may not fit within WP:NOTNEWS, but since WP:NOTNEWS is an essay, not a guideline (or policy), no one has to conform to it. It passes WP:N and it doesn't fail any other notable policy, so my vote stands. WP:NOTNEWS sounds far too much like I don't like it to me. Justin chat 07:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, and WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which, I may add, WP:IAR is, so the premise of your argument doesn't hold water. More to the point: many subjects could be encyclopedia articles but aren't -- simply because Babu may happen to fit WP:N doesn't translate into a requirement that we keep an article on him. Our goal is, or should be, to create an intelligent, scholarly work, and including mention of what is in essence a curious but rather trivial incident in my view cheapens rather than enhances the project. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Birmingham Nature Centre, just drag and drop. Within the history of that centre this is a noteworthy event, but there's nothing to suggest that an entire article needed for Babu. If there were wider ramifications and links to other subjects that'd be one thing, but all I can see is "we seem to be missing a critter", "what's that up that tree?" and "fetch a stick, a bloody big one". Fine, but we don't need the thing's life history. Someone another (talk) 02:17, 13 December 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. I went and merged everything already. Wizardman 03:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (Primary Election)
- Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio (Primary Election) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
While articles on elections and election results are fine, I don't quite see the need for a seperate article specifically for the primary elections for the mayoral seat in one city. I would say redirect to Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio, but this wonky title doesn't seem to be a better search term. Lawrence Cohen 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Redirectto the wonky Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio for now. Then, start thinking about moving that one, and fixing the (then double) redirect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- I suggest 2001 Cincinnati mayor elections by the way, but that's of later concern. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirecting from such a wonky title is no use. Merge content and delete is a better option. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest 2001 Cincinnati mayor elections by the way, but that's of later concern. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a fairly absurd slide down a slippery slope. We are an encyclopedia, not a place where the minutiae of local politics are exhaustively recorded. Biruitorul (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- As the creator of the article, I would be satisfied with Merge with the general election results for the Cincinnati mayoral elections. And I would argue that primary election results for a major city's mayoral race do not constitute "minutiae." Acsenray (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would. Consider this: Cincinnati is the 56th largest city in the US. So let's say we keep this, establishing the precedent that all primaries for all mayoral elections in America's (to pick a round number) top 60 cities deserve articles. Multiply that by about 25 (primaries have existed for roughly a century and terms are usually four years), and voilà, you've got yourself 1500 "articles" detailing information that consists of, well, minutiae (as opposed to encyclopedic information, which mayoral general elections, as a general rule, simply are not, not to mention primaries). Add in non-US primaries and you're good for another few hundred at least. Given that even NYC (a city vastly more important that Cincinnati) doesn't have separate primary articles, there really is no defensible case to be made for maintaining this bit of trivia. Biruitorul (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Election Results, Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio for now. That article should probably be broadened into a general article Mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio. If we don't even have that there's very little point in shoveling some election results into odd places they won't be found. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 13 December 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. There is insufficient sourcing and notability for an independent article on this character, consensus agrees. The target for a redirect and merge is unclear (actor or series), even assuming one is warranted, which has not been shown. Xoloz (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] President Harris
This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. The information is covered within the various film articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. Also, several other character articles from this series have also been deleted. TTN (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep in all honesty, I think characters recurring in a couple of movies or books are notable. I think this bio is akin to the Simpsons character Kent Brockman or others. ShivaeVolved 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete sorry - that Disco Stu example showed the fallacy of my previous reasoning. ShivaeVolved 17:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable beyond film, and this information easily fits within the main articles. Xymmax (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete — not notable. --Jack Merridew 18:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Leslie Nielsen or to Scary Movie 4 Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable enough character to warrant an article, and all relevant information has already been merged into Leslie Nielsen's article. Would need more sources of significance of character, impact on films, and sourced information. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as it is a notable character in a notable series of movies played by a notable actor. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Per WP:FICTION --SimpleParadox 18:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article fails to demonstrate notability; I suggest deleting and then redirecting it to the first movie he appeared in; which would be 3, according to the article. I (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this article is very well written, there's nothing wrong with it.
Music1193,(Talk) 12:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)- Note to closing admin — see: [6], [7], [8] where above is first signed as being by User:Music2611, but is actually by User:Music1193 and then anon User:85.191.41.117 changes it to the "correct" username. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Leslie Nielsen. --Lockley (talk) 07:58, 19 December 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 Magic in Harry Potter. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Felix Felicis
The page shows no indication that the toic has recieved significant coverage by multiple, independent secondary sources, as required by WP:NN. There is also no real world information that any article on a fictional topic should be based around (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:FICT, WP:WAF) and I do not think any could be found. Guest9999 13:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Notability must be established through reliable sourcing, and so far there is no demonstration that it has any. Judgesurreal777 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Magic in Harry Potter. Possible search term. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastordavid (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per Eluchil404. JohnCD (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. Xymmax (talk) 17:22, 12 December 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 evidence of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kent_McManigal
Person has absolutely no notability. Was a "candidate for president", but never actually participated in any debate, ran for a party, ran any substantive advertising, received a notable endorsement, or did anything worth noting. Only external source is a candidate platform comparison page, the information for which was contributed by the candidate himself and thus is not noteworthy. While WP:Bio is not razor-like in its precision, he does not meet any of the three criteria listed as potential guidelines for notability of a politician. Considered speedy delete, but figured regular delete would be a better option. Stump (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm sure there are many thousands of people who don't get on the ballot on each election. ShivaeVolved 17:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -Drdisque (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable - Dumelow (talk) 20:38, 12 December 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. Singularity 02:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Understanding Apples
Non-notable self-published book (Outskirts Press, the supposed publisher, is a pay-to-play operation). The author's article was recently deleted, but the AfD neglected to list the article on the book; I feel that was an oversight and am correcting it by creating this AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ShivaeVolved 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable, vanity-published volume. nancy (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Comment I apologize for messsing up the orange theme that was going on this page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
- comment How could I resent a member of the BrewCrew? (next year they'll do better). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC) in Milwaukee, in pain
- (Comment I apologize for messsing up the orange theme that was going on this page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:35, 13 December 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. Singularity 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WHAW-19 Hawkinsville
Hoax; resource/service does not exist Mhking (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable and doesn't seem to have a website, which is strange for what claims to be a web-based TV broadcaster. Possible WP:HOAX - Dumelow (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete looks like a hoax. ShivaeVolved 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I doubt it's a hoax, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that the content is not verifiable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It looks like a hoax and it is certainly unverifiable. Nothing about this article checks out. An "Anderson Sports Group" comes up as an non-media related enterprise. This web-based TV station has no URL and nothing like it can be found on the web. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- very likely a hoax. Google turned up nothing but this article -- not even a website. Also I find it odd for them to use a channel number for something available only on the web. -- azumanga (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This is all I could come up with: There's no TV station with the call letters WHAW. There used to be a WTAU-19 in Albany, GA, but that's a good 70 miles away, and I can't find any connection between the two. No search hits on the web-based station. Finally, checked cable TV listings for zip code 31036 via Titantv.com to see if it might be a local cable station. Nope, the cable companies in the area all use 19 for something else. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 16 December 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. Pastordavid (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spoonerville
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Goof Troop TV show articles. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, is also entirely duplicative and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 03:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable. It should be mentioned the main article (which it already is). - Rjd0060 04:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non notable fictional place. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete not notable and only merits a mention in the main article - Dumelow (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 recreate if she becomes notable. --Oxymoron83 09:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Katelyn jolley
Violates WP:COI. Does not meet WP:BIO (yet). She very well might in the future. She won an online voting competition for new singers but that alone is news but does not by itself satisfy WP:BIO. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. ShivaeVolved 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete - finishing first in a national contest, even if it's online, is doing pretty well, really; there are several news articles about her victory, as well, though they seem to mostly be local coverage. However, I think she can probably wait until she's got a record or two under her belt and more fits WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, recreate in future if she becomes notable --Storkk (talk) 20:32, 14 December 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. John254 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cape Cod Commission
Non-notable local organization. Even though it's a government organization, it's not notable -- lots of cities and counties have land use commissions. This one has done nothing to make itself notable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Smerge no more than a paragraph to Barnstable County, Massachusetts unless this has been exceptionally controversial (i.e. outside of the county itself). We don't need articles on county-level agencies. --Dhartung | Talk 16:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak Merge(see below) It seems possible that this may be more than just a county land use commission, as Cape Cod (Barnstable County) is a fairly unique place, and this commission was created at the state level. However, I think the burden of proof rests on anyone who would assert notability. I would change my position to "keep" if significant coverage can be found in secondary sources (e.g., Boston Globe) to indicate that this is more than just a county agency. It should also be noted that this article was created by an SPA and remains in basically the same form. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Changed from "Weak merge" to "Merge" per arguments below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Changed to "Keep", as burden of proof is now met. See below. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)- Keep There are numerous Boston Globe articles readily available on Google News, with significant coverage including this one, which indicates that the Commission has been involved in a very notable debate over offshore wind farms. Perhaps if the article had reflected its role in the wind farm debate, it's notability would have been less in question? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep two separate notes in NYTimes and Globe show an independent, functioning agency. ShivaeVolved 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please add these references to the page, so that we can evaluate them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- references have been added, for your evaluation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Shawn. After reviewing these, I think I still recommend that this page be merged. The wind farm controversy is adequately covered at Cape Wind, and anything else can be mentioned at Barnstable County or Cape Cod. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- references have been added, for your evaluation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please add these references to the page, so that we can evaluate them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep based on 60 seconds with Google News: 30+ mentions in the last 30 days; >3000 press mentions in Google's news archives search. --A. B. (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- The number of WP:Googlehits is not a valid reason either to keep or delete an article. Looking through your hits, the vast majority seem to be due to Cape Wind, which already has an article. The few others are local in scope, and "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- I believe this is a misinterpretation of WP:GOOGLEHITS, a section within the essay, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Read it carefully -- it discuss reliable sources vs. raw web search engine results; another essay, Wikipedia:Search engine test gives the topic a fuller treatment. Google News is not a web search engine -- it searches news media. And Google News' recent implementation of an archive search tool gives Wikipedia editors a powerful tool to quickly find reliable sources in about 60 seconds. For many topics, I don't think an AfD should be initiated until the nominator has at least run a Google News test. Like it or not, the Cape Cod Commission is clearly notable. See the references in the article -- the 1989 New York Times article predates the Cape Wind controversy. --A. B. (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The number of WP:Googlehits is not a valid reason either to keep or delete an article. Looking through your hits, the vast majority seem to be due to Cape Wind, which already has an article. The few others are local in scope, and "organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable." --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Per above points. --Sharkface217 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- KeepThe sources--even the recent sources in GN, are sufficient. Its activities go back further than that. I wouldnt make it a general rule, but this particular commission is notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I've only had the pleasure of visiting Cape Cod a couple of times in my life, but it is such a tiny, fragile, and sought-after area -- home to many prominent and powerful people -- and it's not surprising if this Commission has garnered more notability than similar bodies in other parts of the US. This is not a precedent to include every county commission in the country. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep After my above comments, A.B. added a reference to a 1988 news story concerning the creation of the commission. This shows a general notability beyond county issues and the current Cape Wind controversy, and is what I was looking for. I would like to see much more of this in the article, as it is the heart of the notability question in my opinion, but this is at least enough to keep the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:21, 16 December 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, nom withdrawn with only keep !votes present. Non-admin closure. sh¤y 17:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Angry Video Game Nerd (show)
First of all, this is a repost (articles relating to AVGN or James Rolfe have been deleted in many different iterations), secondly its simply not encyclopedic or notable in the scope of Wikipedia Mr Senseless (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The show's popularity has increased dramatically since earlier incarnations of the article. I agree that an article 4 months ago would be premature, now the issue is quite different. Since then, the show has produced (and sold out of) a DVD and been featured on international radio on the Opie and Anthony show. In fact, the show is far more popular now than Chris Crocker - whom also deservingly has an article. The show is known in the United States, Europe and even parts of Asian and India. If you like, I can work on the popularity section to better given references to international interviews, articles, etc....
Mostly, the show is popular in the gaming subculture. Admittedly, mainstream people are not completely familiar with the show, but that is also true of many topics worthy of an article in Wikipedia.
I realize that this issue might be a magnet for fanboyism. While I loath Chris Crocker, I agree that he deserves an article. In either case, I am also a great advocate of Wikipedia - not just a "fan". Check my contribution page. Thanks for your time. - DevinCook (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC). - Strong Keep on the grounds that this show's notability and verifiability has in fact been established. The AVGN character has been featured on the Opie and Anthony show on XM Radio on more than one occasion. James has also been featured on G4TV, CNN, and Spike TV in the last several months. SashaNein (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Again, Chris Crocker, another YouTube celebrity, has his own article, so why shouldn't Mr. Rolfe? He is also connected to the large websites ScrewAttack, a subsidiary of GameTrailers. I think that proves AVGN's notability. Liscobeck (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. AVGN is a production of ScrewAttack, licenced to GameTrailers.com, which is run by MTV-Viacom. Besides the notability previous voters have mentioned, I feel this is addition info worth adding. Stump (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. If everyone under this catagory[9] is deserving of their own article, I think the Angry Video Game Nerd is too. Takuthehedgehog (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well, that's what I get for being complacent and postponing making an argument against this on the article's talk page, thinking that this wouldn't happen. First, reposts are not black marks. Articles are frequently readded in improved form after circumstances change or new facts come to light, and it's not remarkable for someone to request a deleted page's restoration in his userspace and retool it into an acceptable version. Articles should stand on their own merits instead of those of their previous iterations; there's no reason to do otherwise other than impatience, and one of the things this project definitely is not is in a hurry.
I'm currently editing in info about said new merits.
(edit conflict) Second, regarding those merits, I've reviewed the sources available for the article and found them an eclectic bunch from different parts of the world, but sufficient. That's the Internet for you. Non-English references are acceptable - as they happen to be vital for articles on things in non-English-speaking countries - with a citation of the original text provided. The Angry Video Game Nerd show has appeared repeatedly on a nation-wide radio show, though that nation was Canada, and has had multiple non-trivial appearances in print, here and in the largest gaming magazine in Poland. There's an assortment of other things, but a separate article is already justified. Now, we still have to get a Swedish editor to translate (or ask one of those who have already said they can) and get a Polish editor to find a copy of that magazine and translate, but those are issues of article improvement; as is loudly and often said, AfD is not cleanup. Nominations for deletion have to be against what an article can become, not what it is at the present moment. --Kizor (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - I'm withdrawing my AfD due to WP:SNOW and that even though I don't personally feel that the AVGN or Chris Crocker are encyclopedic, technically this article does pass WP:WEB now. Mr Senseless (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. If you delete a wikipedia article it should be lisanova, or lonelygirl13, or chris crocker. The AVGN has been on the radio, has a sold out DVD, ECT...
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Singularity 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Craig McConnell
Football (soccer) player does not appear to be notable - no evidence he has played any first team games for any club --Snigbrook (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing from Google suggests he achieved notability, although he was a player at Hibs and Coventry.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete did not make the first team for either Coventry or Hibs therefore fails WP:BIO..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Not notable. --SimpleParadox 21:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I doubt it is a valid defence, but the originating editor has asked on the talk page that the article at least remain until he gets a chance to merge it into an article on the school/home town. Kevin McE (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've replied there to tell him that the article, which is surely set to be deleted per this debate, should still remain up for another four days or so..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, totally non-notable, fails WP:BIO, no merge either. Qwghlm (talk) 11:56, 13 December 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. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dragon Swords MUD
Non-notable game, unsourced, no reliable third-party sources --Snigbrook (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no third party coverage or other evidence of notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No independent coverage to establish notability; listings at MUD genre sites don't cut it. Maralia (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 01:47, 13 December 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. Singularity 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 12 Prospect Street North Bennington Vermont
NN house, I couldn't find one source that proves that Sherley Jackson lived there, fails WP:V, prod removed, do not merge and Delete Secret account 14:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, random address w/ no established notability in itself and dubious notability via association. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notab.e -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, takes more than this to make an author's temporary accomodations notable. --Dhartung | Talk 16:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unverifiable, and probably not notable anyway. Maralia (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete because it is not notable to Wikipedia guidelines and seems to be made up entirely of original research. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:42, 16 December 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. John254 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kingsmead Technology College
nn high school, No Reliable sources exists even though I searched, nothing at google news nither, prod removed Delete Secret account 13:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep high schools or their equivalents are notable. RMHED (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per RMHED. Justin chat 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please, while high-schools are considered "notable", they need to have the Reliable sources first, if not, it should be deleted. Secret account 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep substantial high school, that is a specialist school as a technology college, that is notable for operating a sixth form on behalf of two other school and is part of a group of schools operating in an unusual collaboration with a college of further education. Despite what the nominator says, reliable sources are available and will be added progressively over the next day or two. TerriersFan (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. High schools are notable and it has been the subject of secondary independent sources like the BBC. --Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Quite a well improved article, well sourced with multiple secondary and independent sources used, hence passes WP:N in my opinion. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep: The article has at least one claim to notability: its Investor in People status. I'm not familiar with this award. I'm surprised to see so many citations for so many ordinary things: a name change, the appointment of a new deputy education director, an exchange program, being rated Satisfactory, a new gym and money for grounds, a play, absenteeism statistics, and so forth. It's hard to assume good faith for the addition of these sources, which appear to be added purely to inflate the apparent notability of the article. Still, the article has content and at least some kind of a claim, so I'd be reluctant to delete even if the award turned out to be as common as I suspect it is. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- While I didn't add sources to this article, I frequently do to other articles in AfDs to demonstrate notability of the topic. That is in no manner a bad faith effort. If there is evidence to support the notability of any topic, all editors should be aware of it. Editors should always be encouraged to improve any article at any time. Even Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion encourages improving an article during an AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I always support improving articles, especially those in AfD. I just don't thinkthose things are notable or cite-worthy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:04, 15 December 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 20:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] KIS Sivar
Article has no assertion of real-world notability. Lacks any reliable sources and is entirely original research and in-universe plot summary/trivia. Had redirected to work in which it appears, but edit was reverted as "vandalism." --EEMIV (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That is harsh and mean to say. 'More?' 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, fancruftastic. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons summed up by the nominator. Nuttah (talk) 18:47, 16 December 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 nom withdrawn based on the substantial rewrite. Closed by the nominator. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm being given too much credit. I didn't rewrite anything. I just added a few paragraphs. Note, by the way, that the book didn't exist at the time of the last deletion discussion. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copenhagen Free University
Self-established self-proclaimed "university" in Copenhagen. Not only is this not an institution of learning on any level, it is also utterly non-notable. So, delete per no assertion of notability as well as general lack of reliable sources. I guess I could have nominated for speedy but this has been here for 4 years with no improvement of any significance. There is apparently an old VfD which I have been unable to locate. Hence this AfD rather than speedy as I do not know what happened at that VfD and nominating articles for speedy after they have been kept per VfD/AfD is a bad habit. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum The VfD is here. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nomination EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not being a real university doesn't stop it having a page here as long as it is notable. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case. Alberon (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. No, it is not a university, it is an art collective, and there is no deception on that point (other than some probably good-faith miscategorization). Properly referenced to two independently published books. What exactly is the claim of non-notability here? You're going to have to engage those sources directly to reach me. --Dhartung | Talk 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment No problem. The current version is significantly better than the one I nominated. The version I nominated is here and did not contain the same sources. Based on the rewrite I withdraw the nom. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 12 December 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. Pastordavid (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wing Commander technology and vehicles
In-universe list of trivia and blurbs of plot summary not substantiated by reliable sources. None of these devices/technology is notable. --EEMIV (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge - should be merged into Wing Commander (franchise). Fangz of Blood 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:GAMECRUFT User:Krator (t c) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Krator. We're not a place to copy the game guide to. --Jack Merridew 09:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. Nuttah (talk) 18:49, 16 December 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, unsourced original research. Pastordavid (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of prostitution-related jargon
Procedural nom. This was a deleted prod which I restored per a request on my talk page. The original concern was: "Unsourced list for over a year, Wikipedia is not a slang dictonary" After Midnight 0001 12:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Neologisms. ViperSnake151 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my comment in the original prod. Secret account 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If only Senator Craig had been able to see this before his trip to Minnesota. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete An unsourced, WP:OR disaster. Spellcast (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I was the original creator of this list, which I intended primarily as scaffolding for building a series of articles on the topic -- it's become a dumping-ground for unsourced stuff, delete as unsourced original research, per other commenters. -- Karada (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, although it's a shame to do so. Cheers Karada. --Lockley (talk) 05:03, 18 December 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 Merge and Redirect the character to List of Star Trek characters: G-M (done); Keep actor without prejudice to re-listing. BLACKKITE 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Leslie (Star Trek)
This article clearly does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline expressed in WP:N. The single reference given in the article does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The coverage in that source is simply trivial and is not enough to assert notability. There was a previous AfD for this article in which some people cited WP:FICT, but WP:FICT is now heavily disputed as it fails to adhere to either WP:N or WP:V. I also think that the closing admin simply did a head count instead of assessing the validity of the comments. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following article about the actor who played this minor character, because there is no indication of notability, and the only reference given is to Memory Alpha, which isn't a reliable source for either verification or assertion of notability:
- Delete both as nominator, for above reasons. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given what this article says, he should definitively be merged, not deleted, but I'm not sure whether List of Star Trek characters: G-M is more appropriate or Redshirt (character). Others will know better. – sgeureka t•c 11:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Redshirt (character) already uses an image of this character as an example, and includes the reference listed in this character's article. I can't see anything else worth merging, the rest seems too trivial. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Both As pointed out during an earlier nomination, Leslie did have some lines on the show. And further, there are all sorts of minor characters on List of Star Trek characters who have articles of their own. Watchsmart (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Having a few lines in a show does not constitute notability. Only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can assert notability. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to keep something. The other articles will be dealt with in time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument and the whole point of redshirts is that they're nonentities. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep both, at least until the desicion is made on W:FICT. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fictional page as cruft, keep actor's page as minimally notable. JJL (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. I'm not a Trekkie, I'm a Trekker bordering on a Trekkist, but this just isn't notable by any standard. I explicitly omit the "cute little corners of Wikipedia" standard. It's suitable for Memory Alpha or Wikia's Memory Beta, but doesn't pass WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable character and actor. 86.136.83.63 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie S. Trek As a bit player in a cult favorite that's aired over and over, he's notable. Indeed, nearly every actor associated with the original series is a part of the culture of the show. Paskey was on five of the episodes, had a name, and even had a role that even casual fans remember. On "This Side of Paradise" (the one where spores made it where nobody on the Enterprise gave a shit about their job), he's the guy who gives the "f--- you" response to William Shatner's bold "This is MUTINY, mister!" (something like, "Yeah, I guess it is"). One of the print magazines devoted to the show dubbed him the "King of the Redshirts". As with Michael Barrier, he's one of those people you've seen som many times, you eventually say "who WAS that guy"? Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the actor, merge the character. I note, btw, that a lot of the !votes above seem to be about only the character. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie into List of Star Trek characters. His article is destined to remain a non-notable stub forever, and would be better treated by being merged into a list; but Paskey's article has enough notable content to justify existence in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete character - Star Trek is notable, every minor character is not, including this one. What's next, articles on individual tribbles? Kirk's quarters? The actor may be able to be established as notable - delete too, if not improved by the time this AfD is closed. --Jack Merridew 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Eddie Paskey, merge the character unless more evidence found. Paskey has some coverage including this NYT article.[10]. Starlog issue #143 ("King of the Redshirts") covers him, but I don't have that source in hand. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep actor, Merge and redirect character. Paskey, as a character actor, does achieve the notability standards, but the problem is that he's not always Lt. Leslie in Trek, as is explained in the article. He does quite a bit, but as a minor character, probably belongs in the list of Trek chars. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete the gun, merge the canoliEr ...Delete As a fan, this character has little notability in universe. The actor can be kept based on some of the minimal reference material provided. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- Keep. Gotta have a sense of humor and fun! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- To improve clarity, I have struck through the above unhelpful comment. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- And I'm unstriking it. I'm a serious editor with 28,000 edits. My input to the AfD process is to keep the article, on grounds of "cute little corners of Wikipedia", on grounds that Star Trek is special because it created modern fancruft as we know it, and yes on the grounds that a few articles deserve to exist just because their existence is humorous. And it's up to the admin that closes this AfD to decide how much weight to give my input, not you. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Warning Although editing of articles is freely done, you are not allowed to edit other people's comments, Gorgan. The closing administrator does not need anybody's assistance in understanding the discussion, nor should Wasted Time have to "waste time" undoing vandalism. Please note that anonymous edits are easily verified as part of the editing history. Mandsford (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Recurring character on the original incarnation of a vastly influential and important program, and actor who played that character as well as several others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete character or merge to appropriate character list. (Indifferent about the actor.) Insignificant per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Leslie; Keep Eddie. The actor has several other roles - and to say his primary character isn't notable isn't to say he isn't notable. That's 59 episodes over two years (plus other roles). •97198 talk 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete Leslie because he is a trivial character who only received trivial coverage which centred around his triviality.
- Abstain Eddie because I think WP:BLP should be relevant here, but I'm no expert on that policy.
- Wish these had been two separate nominations.--Yannick (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Seconded. Could we please split these two up? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge/delete Leslie into list of characters. There is a word for this, and it is known as fancruft. A minor character is not noteworthy of an encyclopedia article. There are Star Trek wikis for this. No comment on the actor. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm unable to find any verifiable reliable sources - the book in there isn't really enough to assert notability. Actor may, however, be notable - that should be listed separately. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:05, 22 December 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, nom withdrawn, and a re-write/stubification done that satisfied BLP concerns. Well done, all. Pastordavid (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 De Anza baseball players rape case
unsalvageable WP:BLP violation; tabloid-style account of unproven rape allegations is unsuitable for Wikipedia Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Note - the article has been completely rewritten since the version nominated for deletion. Please consider that when interpreting the following discussion. Thx. Wikidemo (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Further note - I am now withdrawing the nomination. The article as rewritten satisfies any notability and BLP concerns, in my opinion, and seems to be stable. Would someone neutral please care to close this? We still need to think of a new title, something like the new lead "The 2007 De Anza College baseball investigation", but we do not need an AfD to do so. Thanks to everyone for all your thoughtful contributions. This little part of Wikipedia is that much better for our efforts. - Wikidemo (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator, without prejudice to re-creation as a proper article. I struggled with this because if you remove all the inappropriate news coverage and BLP violation there is possibly a notable subject in there. However, the article is so rife with BLP violations, and in such poor organizaiton as an encyclopedia article, that it would take a major effort if not complete blanking/stubbification. Even the title is a BLP violation. It asserts that a rape occurred and that the baseball players were involved, yet they were never even charged and there are no reliable sources that say either. They say only that an accusation was made. Further, the article describes the rape of an identifiable underage girl, and claims she was intoxicated. It then accuses onlookers (similarly, with reliable sources only that the accusation was made, not that it happened) of facilitating the rape and refusing to cooperate with police. And all that's just in the WP:LEAD! The rest of the article includes a "timeline" full of unreliable statements and naming of names. That requires extreme care but instead we have a mess of an article. The whole thing is so wrong I would not know where to begin. So unless anyone is ready to rewrite the article from the ground up, the best thing to do is to delete. It could probably simply be blanked as a BLP matter without AfD, but that would probably create a dispute. This has already been mentioned at WP:BLP/N, and via a WP:PROD tag that was removed. So I thought the best next step is to work through the issue here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note - the rewritten version as of today is acceptable from my point of view. If it or something like it sticks and does not get reverted I will withdraw this nomination. I think we should wait another day or two, though, to make sure this gets settled rather than dropping the AfD prematurely. Wikidemo (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not certain of whether this article will have lasting notability or not, which was mentioned in the original prod as a reason for deletion. There doesn't appear to be a lack of verifiability (the article has 92 separate references, though some, such as [11], appear to be duplicated as different refs, rather than using "ref name"), but there is certainly an issue with the quality of the article. Indeed, my only involvement in the article prior to notification of this AfD was adding a tone tag. Pretty much the entire article, in general, from its tone, to the wording of the headlines, appears to be more reminiscent of the free tabloid that anyone can edit. The timeline section, for example, quickly stops being a timeline of the case itself, and becomes a timeline of all news stories about the case, with the story headlines provided after the date, which is misleading. However, I also realise that poor quality is not really a good reason for deletion, so I am relatively neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted. If it is kept, however, it would probably need stubbing temporarily while being rewritten. --Dreaded Walrus t c 11:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Further comment - most of my concerns have been addressed in the current version of the article. Dreaded Walrus t c 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteI think we've agreed before that not every news event is worthy of an encyclopedia article and this is no different. We do not have an article on every alleged rape happening worldwide; its unfeasible and not in line with the goals of this project. This incident had no lasting significance that would indicate needing an article here and in its current state is little more than a coatrack for maligning the players and prosecutor. I believe that WP:BLP also falls in here as we are obviously doing harm to several living people as Wikidemo illustrated above. Should consensus be that there should be an article on this topic at a title elsewhere, the current article will still need to be deleted as there is no salvageable history. Shell babelfish 14:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This alleged rape has received widespread coverage over an extended period. It has implications beyond the average alleged rape in that it has occasioned widespread comment about the handling of the case by the prosecutor, and because of the notoreity before the incident on the part of the college baseball team which is alleged to have had involvement. The
90 plusdozens of references appear to offer the basis for satisfying the requirements for compliance with WP:BLP policy, in that there are enough reliable sources to back up statements in a coherent account of the event and its aftermath. That said, there is clearly room for improvement in the tone and exposition of the article, which is not in itself a basis for deletion. Also, such a contentious case requires ongoing editorial supervision. Those two facts are not a basis for deletion. {{WP:N]] is satisfied. Edison (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - Keep The article provides dozens of independent reliable sources and there are dozens more. The incident is treated as an incident (not an article with an involved individual as a title) and provides clear evidence that this is a subject that has been deemed a notable subject of news coverage for an extended period of time. The prose could use some work, but notability has been established. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree, a proper article could be written, but WP:BLP considerations are to my mind so paramount that this should be deleted, or at least returned to a stub w/ the references intact, and start over. First, the title "rape case" has to go. There
areis no charge of rape (only the prosecutor can do that) and there is no "case." We should not associate that term with any identifiable group of people. The NPOV problems are significant as well, as there appears to be an underlying assumption that the assault occurred (as it very well may have, but it isn't WP's place to make that case). For this type of article to work, each and every line needs to be sourced, and someone needs to watch to make certain that the sources state exactly what the article claims they do. This is bad enoughtthat I plan to try to spend some time fixing it when I get off work. Xymmax (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Your vote to delete is inconsistent with your statement above; if notability is established, and there really are WP:NPOV or WP:BLP issues here, they should be properly addressed, rather than swept under the rug via deletion. I cannot ascertain the truth of this incident, but I can certainly verify that the presumption of notability has been amply demonstrated by the extensive and ongoing media coverage documented in the article. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I respectfully disagree. WP:BLP provides for immediate deletion of improperly sourced biographical material, and by extension, if the article is made up solely of such material, the entire article could be deleted. The nominator clearly has similiar concerns, as you can see from the discussion of this article on the BLP noticeboard [here]. Still, I am not interested in deleting this article if it can be salvaged, and I will take a stab at it tonight. If it seems salvagable I happily will change my vote. Hopefully someone will address the articles problems in the meantime. Xymmax (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep: Notability has clearly been established but the article needs a very serious rewrite to cover the WP:NPOV problems. Give the article a chance to address the issues it has, relist at a later date if they aren't. Justin chat 19:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as there are enough BLP problems as to render the article unsalvageable. We need a new title anyway, so I would propose starting from scratch with these references and a proper title. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep though it certainly needs some editing. (I deprodded it, thinking it needed a discussion at least before deleting). The article is careful to omit the names of all the directly involved parties, except one who was charged in a not directly-connected felony, and the DA is a public figure. I am not sure there are actually any BLP violations (except probably the other felony) --nothing is reported beyond what is in the newspaper accounts. But the detail is otherwise altogether excessive. rightly or wrongly, accusations of such matters involving college athletes are always major news stories--and all the more so because of the developments in cases elsewhere. There is therefore extensive newspaper coverage, and there is probably more by now, and the article also needs updating. I think the title is probably suitable--what would be a better? It would be clearly inappropriate to use the names of the parties. I look forward to seeing what Xymmax makes of it. I should have started the trimming when I deprodded. I will help by removing the section on the hit-and-run case, which is clearly prejudicial. DGG (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't think that omitting the names solves the BLP problem because they are all identifiable individuals. The newspaper accounts are (variously) dead links, unreliable sources (editorials, blogs, etc), mischaracterized (a newspaper's account of what a single witness said, or of what police claim a witness said, is reported as fact or as what all of the witnesses said), or impertinent salacious details that provide a narrative of a rape rather than encyclopedic content that is relevant to the notability of the event. The notability, if any, is not that a rape occurred but that an apparent rape by a college team was not prosecuted, leading to criticism and protests. For that issue the age, appearance, etc., of the victim and perpetrators, the alleged cheering of bystandards, the girls' team breaking down the door, the details of her drunkenness, etc., are unnecessary. Excessive detail in an article would simply be a style matter fit for clean-up. Excessive derogatory detail about living people is a BLP issue, particularly when poorly sourced, repeated as hearsay, etc. I think your pruning helped a bit but in my opinion the article needs something much more drastic. I just deconstructed the lead paragraph in the talk page, and my conclusion is that only 1/4 or less of the lead paragraph is salvageable. If that gets done it could leave a short, but arguably notable and properly sourced article that does not violate BLP, so perhaps something can be saved and the article kept. However, if it does not happen it is better to delete the article than to leave a BLP violation. We shouldn't just leave the article sitting around in hopes that someday someone fixes it. That's what AfD is all about. Articles either get fixed and kept, or not fixed and possibly deleted.Wikidemo (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've completely blanked and rewritten the article into a stub. I ended up resourcing most of the article, because San Diego Mercury Observer doesn't allow free access to its archived material. As a result, I couldn't access large portions of the orginal citations. Please note that I did this only as a stop-gap measure, because I agree w/ Wikidemo that the thing should go. However, I did give it a good faith effort to write something less problematic. I did not alter the title, something that I feel must be done, because I was afraid that I would interfere w/ the Afd. I also went into far less detail, because at this stage the facts are too unclear for us to give the matter proper encyclopediac treatment. Please feel free to criticize here or further edit. I do hope no one will feel it necessary to outright revert. :) Xymmax (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Now that's an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I'm still concerned that the older revisions should be deleted per WP:BLP; the problem existed from the first edit [12] and the majority of contributions were made by that same editor. Since a good argument has been made for the encyclopedic worth of the subject, moving this to a different title using Xymmax's start would be appropriate. Excellent writing Xymmax! Shell babelfish 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree entirely. We delete articles when they violate WP:BLP, we don't delete articles that at one time violated WP:BLP but no longer does. Justin chat 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The proposal was to delete that part of the article record that contained BLP violations, not the article itself. We often delete or de-link things from the article history that are so problematic that we don't even want people reading the history - privacy violations, copyright violations, apparent defamation, etc. I don't see a problem with doing that but I don't think it's necessary. There was nothing in the article that isn't already in newspapers or all over the web. I think it was inappropriate for a Wikipedia article because we don't want to add to the noise, but the noise is already there so deleting our history won't really help anything. Wikidemo (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree entirely. We delete articles when they violate WP:BLP, we don't delete articles that at one time violated WP:BLP but no longer does. Justin chat 03:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. I'm still concerned that the older revisions should be deleted per WP:BLP; the problem existed from the first edit [12] and the majority of contributions were made by that same editor. Since a good argument has been made for the encyclopedic worth of the subject, moving this to a different title using Xymmax's start would be appropriate. Excellent writing Xymmax! Shell babelfish 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Deleting history would be appropriate only if it did contain names, or material that had not been widely disseminated, which does not seem to be the case. DGG (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete This article is somewhat at the borderline of lasting notability for keep/delete to me. I'm leaning to delete with no bias against recreation if something comes out of this. Also no bias against including a very short section in e.g. the De Anza baseball team article Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 16 December 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. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Imperial DikuMUD
Non-notable online game. Claims to be "one of the longest running and largest Dikumuds in the world" but that isn't enough to establish notability under WP:N, WP:WEB or WP:RPG/N; and in any case there is no coverage from independent sources. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, 1992 sounds impressive, but there's more than a handful of MUDs that have been running that long. No independent sources provided, and the article reads like a gameguide, which Wikipedia is not. Lankiveil (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No independent coverage is cited in the article; none of the 308 google hits for "Imperial DikuMUD" look promising. Marasmusine (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tequila - per WP:ADVERT User:Krator (t c) 01:07, 13 December 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. Singularity 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mill(insult)
PROD removed by originator. This article is unsourced, the subject is a neologism, it is not notable (the article itself says it is little known), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NEO, and obviously a self-admitted little-known slang term has serious notability issues. Lankiveil (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete As above. If it is little known then it simply isn't notable. Alberon (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not abuse the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can verify that this slang term is increasing in popularity, and has appeared in multiple articles related to bullying im the Midlands region of England.
. Honourableone (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. (I was going to prod the article, but found that the author had removed the AfD template, which I restored.) —Travistalk 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Also see related discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill centre —Travistalk 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete under WP:NEO. Unfortunately, the note from user:Honourableone is not a reliable source. note also we are not a dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources provided. (No prejudice towards Honourableone, it's just that his observations are not documented.) --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep One source provided. Honourableone (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- A school newsletter. That's it, where the term "Mill Centre" turned up twice in the document. It makes no allusion to the definition, just that it is used someplace, which is nowhere near enough to get it into Wikipedia - and in this context, this tells me that you created what amounts to an attack page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no notable neologism. Nuttah (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I am not so sure about Mill Centre, which appears to be largely identical. If the use of Mill as an abbreviation for Mentally Ill can indeed be attested, the right place is in a dictionary not an encyuclopaedia. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 16 December 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 nomination (see nominator comment at the bottom). — Rudget Contributions
[edit] Agriculture in Senegal
While not normally a fan of deleting missing pages on Africa, this article has serious POV problems and lacks sources. Deleting the POV on the page but keeping it would result in essentially no information left on the article. Fails WP:SOURCE Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. —Thomas.macmillan (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Stubify & Cleanup, agree that the page is in terrible shape, but a complete rewrite of the article doesn't require a deletion first. Lankiveil (talk) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Keep and rewrite/add cleanup + source tags as per Lankiveil. Lugnuts (talk) 11:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, article is notable but the present form needs work - Dumelow (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. Clearly a notable enough topic but as mentioned above it needs work. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep now that it's been cleaned up. Biruitorul (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn now that is has been cleaned up.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 18:37, 12 December 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. John254 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Double standard
not enough sources or refreneces Phoenix X91 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, surely there must be some sources for such a widely used term? I hardly think it could fall under WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Keep and cleanup, a notable and widely used term - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Lack of references is not, on its own, criteria for deletion, and there are certainly tons of available sources for such a common term. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and source, a fairly important topic. One of the problems is that the meaning has changed over time (initially "double standard of value" which meant more like "dual monetary standards supporting each other") and became adopted by women's rights activists at the height of the term's monetary popularity (late 19th century) as the double standard of morality between the treatment of men and women for sexual behavior. This remained the primary meaning of the term up until the 1960s when a variety of discourses emerged and appropriated it for racial and other disparities. Nowadays, post sexual liberation, there is no more need for the term and it has reverted to a sort of generic use, but the article fails to reflect this. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and source per above. Justin chat 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain - The article currently has no sources. My suspicion is that sources can be found, and if that happens, I'll change my vote to keep. Editors have to keep a short leash on this article, though, and make sure it remains on topic since it is often horribly abused as a soapbox. Torc2 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but needs substantial rewriting. I don't think notability is an issue here - the term itself is inherently notable. However, the present article approaches the concept from the wrong angle and is unsourced. Creating a good article on this will be a major challenge, but there should be enough reliable secondary sources out there to draft something. WaltonOne 20:04, 14 December 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. Singularity 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] VIP Air Ambulance
NN, spam/ad Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - spam. Also fails WP:CORP, as well as is unreferenced. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, take your pick: WP:N, WP:V, WP:ADVERT, etc. Lankiveil (talk) 10:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete yep, hits quite a few reasons for deletion. Alberon (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable as written. - BillCJ (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Debate(?) - Wasn't sure what to label this.. just wanted to chime in as the article creator. I'm new at Wiki editing, and I realize now that the page needs some kind of outside references or sources, which I will try to track down. I do believe that the company is notable and important to hospital and medical communities, though, and hopefully I'll have something better than that little blurb soon. Ringo380 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The next time I'm lying on the ground near Houston with body parts broken and severed, I'll be sure to check Wikipedia to assess my hospital transport options. Strong delete. ΨνPsinu 20:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Debate - I appreciate your sarcasm Psinu, I really do, but in actuality VIP assists hospitals and insurance companies directly.. transporting donated organs quickly, picking up injured people in remote locations (not a bunch of severed body parts) with injuries that need hospital attention of some kind. The injured guy himself would generally not be the one to call us. He/she would call the hospital, who would then in turn call us because they don't have the resources to get to him, or for whatever reason. Hope that clears a few things up. In regards to the Houston comment, it's an international company.. just based in Houston. Ringo380 (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (but an idea on how to research more in order to find criteria for "keep" I haved edited WP aviation articles hundreds of times and also am aware of the benefits of keeping poorly written articles on good subjects in the hopes that they may be later improved (or I even improve them myself). I'm having difficulty finding notability of the company. I think they are not an airline or have their own fleet but provide in flight nursing care and arrange charter aircraft for the sick. Articles about small airlines do have an easier time of passing WP:NN because of the press coverage and reliable sources available but companies that provide medical services (such as your ophthalmologist's or cardiologist's office, a local medical oxygen supply company, or a local air ambulance) have a harder time to meet WP notability standards. Perhaps the authors/editors may channel their efforts into writing about air ambulances and shouldn't be discouraged or angry if the article is deleted? Either that or use Air Methods Company as a model. That company is a very large air ambulance company in the U.S. and has many google results, some of which seem like reliable sources. Archtransit (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete -- nothing in Google News' archive. Note also that this article's creator also nominated a competing company's article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International SOS. --A. B. (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, abosolutely no indication of why this company is notable. Nuttah (talk) 19:06, 16 December 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. -- Longhair\talk 21:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Darrin J Mason
Non-notable author whose one novel to date was published by a vanity publisher. The sources supplied are not independent of the subject or each other are not suitable for asserting notability. The sources provided do not support the biographical claims made in the article and this appears to be original research. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, the sources do not appear to be sufficiently independent of the subject to be considered reliable. Lankiveil (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete Totally non-notable. Alberon (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable, possible WP:Vanity page (username refers to the novel) - Dumelow (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Twenty Years 18:19, 12 December 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. Singularity 01:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The 10 People Who Suck
Article for a business book that hasn't been published yet. No indication of notability. Appears to be part of a promotional campaign involving sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Wissot and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Teamwissot. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, looks very much like an advert to me. No indication that the book is notable on its own. Lankiveil (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, WP:NOT a trade catalogue and that's where this article would fit best. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Crystal ballin', not verifiable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, agree; no showing of notability for this particular book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Per Nom (I reported the sockpuppets) Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 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. Secret account 21:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History of baltimotre riots for a class project
It is a school paper and a fork of Baltimore riot of 1968. Alksub (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This sort of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe not a fork, because this is the "Baltimotre" riots, not the Baltimore ones! Seriously though, a class paper is pretty inappropriate for an encyclopædia. Lankiveil (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, obviously. A school paper is not an encyclopedia article, and we've already got an article on the subject. AecisBrievenbus 13:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above, needless duplication of article and the original has more information - Dumelow (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's original research. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOT a school jotter. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Geez, I hope this was just the rough draft. If you're gonna use Wikipedia to write your school assignments, use the "sandbox" and then bury it. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete Fails WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK,WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Baltimotre. wow. An example of the writing in this: "More on the riot is the mention of curfew because he worked as a pharmacist". Hmmm. Doc Strange (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- editor... senses... twitching... must... find... red... pen... Delete as unencyclopedic and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE, mostly. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Close as SNOW delete. Keeper | 76 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I tried and failed to persuade the author not to do it this way. DGG (talk) 02:40, 15 December 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. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lahme
Dictionary definition. Alksub (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Check to see if it's a hoax before thinking about transwiking. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, lahme/laħm is the Arabic word for meat, by the looks of it. What this article seems to be referring to is a moderately popular YouTube video. It doesn't look notable to me, and of course, good secondary sources would be required to assert the term's usage in this fashion. Lankiveil (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delhete - Doesn't appear notable. I'll keep checking the article for sourcing while the AfD is running, but for now it just looks like a real word being used neologismically. ◄Zahakiel► 18:18, 12 December 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. Singularity 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Practitioning
Non-notable, poor quality article and has wider meaning than that described in article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable neologism and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, neologism, and a lot of the article may be WP:OR to boot. Lankiveil (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete - even if it was better written it would be too vague for an encyclopedia.Jon Rob (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NEO at best and WP:MADEUP at worst. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:09, 12 December 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. This article has no WP:V sources. Pigman☿ 06:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sentimental engine slayer
Non-notable film-in-progress, per WP:NF. Alksub (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep the film directed and started by notable actors / actresses.--NAHID 09:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, the involvement of Rodriguez-Lopez and Bixler makes this notable to my mind. I wonder if it'll be as incomprehensible as their music? Lankiveil (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete. Google turns up nothing but blogs and MySpace on this. This film may well be in production, but unless someone turns up reliable sources for the information in the article, it should go. If the film is released and turns out to be notable, an article would be appropriate. (By the way, "Filming began in September, 2007 in El Paso, Texas and is expected to commence in October"? Huh?) Deor (talk) 13:32, 12 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lambda Theta Chapter of Chi Phi
Individual chapters of international fraternities are not notable - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Icarus (Hi!) 06:32, 17 December 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. Singularity 01:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paint online
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unsourced - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, idle speculation that falls squarely under WP:CRYSTAL, to my mind. Lankiveil (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and adds little to the encyclopedia - Dumelow (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, content-free musing. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Weasel words to make its argument, which is uncited original research. Straight-up crystal ballin', yo. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone else. Unsourced crystal-ballery. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per all of above. Complete original research and speculation that anyone could make up. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to paint chat or oekaki. The idea exists (and has been implemented, in fact), but there's nothing worth merging here. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - they are completely different. Paint chat as you quoted is just your traditional PC paint program but with multiple connections sharing it; the article in question speculates about a possible new technology creation separate in operation and purpose to that which you mentioned (at least, this is now I am interpreting it). Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps - however, a user looking for "paint online" would probably be more interested in oekaki or paint chat than a blank page, so a redirect to one of the two would be appropriate. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirects are not a subsitute for the search engine. Otherwise funny little Scandinavian hippo thing would point to Moomin. Chris Cunningham (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps - however, a user looking for "paint online" would probably be more interested in oekaki or paint chat than a blank page, so a redirect to one of the two would be appropriate. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:06, 13 December 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 not yet notable. DS (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Torjen
Unpublished and non-notable novel. Alksub (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unpublished novel by an unknown author. I wish him the best of luck, but he's not notable enough to have his books in here quite yet. Lankiveil (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Comment, by the looks of the article history, the author of this book posts as User:King Cala, giving this a WP:COI angle as well. Lankiveil (talk) 10:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete vanity piece; not notable. Maralia (talk) 17:15, 12 December 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. Pastordavid (talk) 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Resurrection In Harlem
Rumoured future mixtape (WP:CRYSTAL). No references. Alksub (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per not real. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, speculation at best, needs some serious sources for that tracklisting. Lankiveil (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per others. ShivaeVolved 17:02, 12 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of environmental sustainability topics
Heading has redundant terms, poorly maintained over past two years, layout not suitable for WP, it has only two mainspace articles linking to it, article is poorly structured, topics are covered (or can be covered) by the sustainability article. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 06:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to Category:Sustainability et. al - there's no information here except the article titles. The related list of environment topics looks like a similar situation. Zetawoof(ζ) 22:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had put list of environment topics up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment topics. See also List of environmental issues. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to Category:Sustainability, List of environmental issues, and List of environment topics. Pastordavid (talk) 19:30, 18 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FreeIQ
No evidence of meeting WP:WEB or WP:CORP, no Reliable sources, seem like a obvious WP:COI as well, as the creation summarry was "Feel Free to help us" Delete-- Secret account 06:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, looks like Web2.0cruft to me. No indication whatsoever of how this is different from the rest of the swarm of "beta" video sharing websites out there. Lankiveil (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. ShivaeVolved 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete . Non-notable, the couple of sources used seem pr-like to me, I'd call it a little spammy. Pastordavid (talk) 19:27, 18 December 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, with no bias against re-creating, should reliable sources be found to establish notability. Pastordavid (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cell Cycle Ontology
A rather non-notable project with ~60 unique google hits, inlcuding from their own website. `'Míkka>t 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless wholly rewritten. Whether the project is notable or not is almost beside the point; a larger problem is the lack of context. The introduction —
The Cell Cycle Ontology, or CCO, project aims to extend the existing ontologies for cell cycle knowledge, to build a resource that integrates and manages knowledge about the cell cycle components and regulatory aspects in OBO and OWL. This knowledge is assembled from a diverse set of already existing resources (GO, IntAct, BIND, NCBI taxonomy, UniProt, and so forth): the combination of the knowledge will give an overall picture of the cell division process. Not only enriched by the combination of resources, Ontology Design Patterns will be appplied in the OWL version of CCO to provide a fine-grained and expressive knowledge model of the cell cycle. Users will be able to do expressive queries and hypotheses validation against the system.
— needs to be translated into English. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - Delete No independent coverage to establish notability, not to mention completely incomprehensible without expert knowledge. Note that all but one of the author's edits have been to this article or to add external links to their website. Maralia (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Needs expert attention-- I listed it for the molecular biology wikiProject As far as i can personally tell, based on its web site, it seems to be possible a comprehensive project for a major data base. It also seems they are just getting started. DGG (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I saw your note of the wikiproject. I have not heard of the project and it seems to be an offshoot of other gene ontology projects. I'd say it is too early to be able to establish any notability which probabbly means that at present it is not notable. We can always start it a new article when their database is more widely known. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks interesting but seems to be yet another bioinformatics project with little in terms of external validation/verification. The present description sounds like some PR language directly translated from Flemish. COI: I automatically switch off when people use terms like semiotics or ontology to describe their work. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 16 December 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. Singularity 01:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Correct answer
Contested prod, not by me. Despite the general title, this is a controversial essay about a program at one particular school. It would be better to redirect to 42 (number), if not delete. Considering the possibility of mischief with this name, perhaps salting should be considered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:COATRACK. Apparently just a POV fork from reform mathematics. --Dhartung | Talk 05:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete essay.
And nonsense in some places, too, probably arising from peculiarities of American education system and inherent confusion between mathematics and application of mathematics.(irrelevant opinion stricken out by author). `'Míkka>t 06:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - Delete as POV essay. It would be difficult to expand an article with this title past a dictionary definition that a correct answer is an answer that is correct (or words to that effect). Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, an unsalvagable POV rant. Lankiveil (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete As above. If you get rid of the POV essay there's nothing left. Alberon (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and the title makes no sense 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge salvageable information into Mathematically Correct. -- Dominus (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:03, 13 December 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. Singularity 01:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Krynn's Time of Dragons
This article seems like an advertisement and the subject seems non-notable. Marlith T/C 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no resources directly tied to the game available through searching, and one of many games of it's type; nothing to indicate anything special about this game above the rest. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, a fan-made game mod that might be fun to play, but which doesn't meet our required notability standards. Lankiveil (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per WP:FICT. There are actually quite a number of notable NWN mods out there, because of the generally large amount of reliable sources that write about these things. (NWvault, BioWare official website Wednesday articles) This one is not notable. User:Krator (t c) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please Keep Why do you find it un-notable? We've spent 4 years creating it. No it is NOT an advertisement, it is factual evidence that we have buildt it and the history of how we created it together. --24.247.1.101 (talk) 11:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) As far as resources tied directly to the game, what do you mean?
-
- Have you guys been featured by any BioWeds, or perhaps on NWvault articles? Some mods and particularly PWs have been featured by paper newspapers. If yours has not, that means it's sadly, not notable. User:Krator (t c) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- *no·ta·ble as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable. So your saying that this is not a remarkable acomplishment by the team that has buildt it? Gary Thomas a few months ago was on GameShout Radio doing an interview. GameShout mentioned that the game platfrom was outdated by the new NWN2. Conversion of the module to the new NWN2 format would take another 4 years so the team is staying with NWN1; furthermore NWN1 is still providing support for the community in regards to these types of PW's. The article for "persistent worlds" had no referance, but now it does with the KTOD article to show what one is. The article also shows the remarkable flexability of the Aroura Engine & Toolset.--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Notable as defined by Wikipedia's notability guideline. What's being asked for is reliable secondary sources. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because of KTOD Tim the builder who retired form the project used it on his application to Bioware and is now currently working with them. Is this documented anywhere? not that i know of. Is it the truth? Yes. If Nothing else, why not merge it with another article under the GFDL if you'll not allow it to stand alone as an "example of", "Relating to", or "for better understanding" it could be merged with any of the following articles: Persistent worlds as an example, Aroura Engine as an example of a created work, Aroura toolkit as an example of a created work, Neverwinter Nights as a fact that this game enigne is still runing strong even after the new release of NWN2, Virtual communities as an example of. ectcetera. --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That someone got a job (supposedly) by virtue of some past project does not make that past project notable. I do not see any parent article that would be improved by merging this article's content into it. GameShout notability sounds promising, however. Coverage of that kind would make your mod notable. By the way, there are several other NWN mods that are in fact notable - it is hard, though. User:Krator (t c) 13:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the same reason, it would need to be sourced. Without secondary sources there's no more reason for Time of Dragons to be in those articles than any other module. Nothing could be said about it apart from that it exists, and we're not in the business of dropping external links to mods without having an article to back it up and give readers some information. Doing so would just open the door for other mod builders to turn up and say "Hey hey hey, why isn't our mod there, why are they getting all the traffic? That's totally biased" etc. etc. Do you know of any significant coverage of Time of Dragons? I'll have a look later (got to go shortly), but it would really help if you know of any. Someone another (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Had a look but came up empty handed. Someone another (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- For the same reason, it would need to be sourced. Without secondary sources there's no more reason for Time of Dragons to be in those articles than any other module. Nothing could be said about it apart from that it exists, and we're not in the business of dropping external links to mods without having an article to back it up and give readers some information. Doing so would just open the door for other mod builders to turn up and say "Hey hey hey, why isn't our mod there, why are they getting all the traffic? That's totally biased" etc. etc. Do you know of any significant coverage of Time of Dragons? I'll have a look later (got to go shortly), but it would really help if you know of any. Someone another (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Notable as defined by Wikipedia's notability guideline. What's being asked for is reliable secondary sources. Someone another (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- *no·ta·ble as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary: Worthy of note or notice; remarkable. So your saying that this is not a remarkable acomplishment by the team that has buildt it? Gary Thomas a few months ago was on GameShout Radio doing an interview. GameShout mentioned that the game platfrom was outdated by the new NWN2. Conversion of the module to the new NWN2 format would take another 4 years so the team is staying with NWN1; furthermore NWN1 is still providing support for the community in regards to these types of PW's. The article for "persistent worlds" had no referance, but now it does with the KTOD article to show what one is. The article also shows the remarkable flexability of the Aroura Engine & Toolset.--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 12:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have you guys been featured by any BioWeds, or perhaps on NWvault articles? Some mods and particularly PWs have been featured by paper newspapers. If yours has not, that means it's sadly, not notable. User:Krator (t c) 11:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - None of the references provided show independent, reliable, non-trivial coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Debate So whats with all the Silent Hill stuff? Is that a personal game interest of yours or Wiki's, or just something your in charge of editting? or what? it seems you have a billion articles about this game. Congradulations on the family edition also! (didn't know Wiki provided each individual worker there own private "blog" type work page, you fellas should make these pages invisable to the general public, if they are (indeed) actual workers for Wiki) see bottom of page--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- A few points. Wikipedia is edited solely by volunteers, not "employees"; each user gets their own User page (not a blog, as laid out by WP:USER), yours is at User:Pluto2spacebeam (which is a red link, seeing as it's blank); and the existence of other articles is irrelevant to the existence of this one. sh¤y 17:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Debate So whats with all the Silent Hill stuff? Is that a personal game interest of yours or Wiki's, or just something your in charge of editting? or what? it seems you have a billion articles about this game. Congradulations on the family edition also! (didn't know Wiki provided each individual worker there own private "blog" type work page, you fellas should make these pages invisable to the general public, if they are (indeed) actual workers for Wiki) see bottom of page--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- db-spam per above. Miranda 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable fan-build; there appear to be no relevant reliable sources regarding this project, and thus it's not verifiable. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Merge I would still ask for it to be merged with another article if possable, I'll do it if I have to.
Your right, I guess I cannot defend my submission this way due to policies...The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article.
- Merge I would still ask for it to be merged with another article if possable, I'll do it if I have to.
-
-
- Delete: Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N, WP:V, and we definitely have some WP:COI action going as well. Pluto2spacebeam appears to be a SBA for whom this article, and its defense, is almost his sole Wikipedia activity. I appreciate his fervor in wishing to publicize his creation, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. RGTraynor 22:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Debate First off, The article is not masquerading as anything as you try to say falls under WP-SPAM, Infact it is an article I have tried to write in real terms about real people, while trying to provide all the ligitimit facts that I can about the subject matter to try to better this site.
I am currently looking for factual evidence to show you folks its notablity, in regards to WP-N. I have also given examples of how the article might be "merged" with another article to give a broader and/or more rounded aspect to the article it would / could be added unto via the GDFL. As far as the WP-V goes....Now your calling me a Vandal of some sort to your site, How Rude. In regards to the WP: COI, Think what you want to, everyone is entitled to there own opinion for this is a talk / debate section on why or why not the article should be kept, deleted or merged to form a more factual article of another. Then whatever this SBA abriviation stands for who knows... I personaly don't. Q. Is It my sole activity here? A. Of course it is. Q. Why? A. Common sense will tell you that this is my first contribution to the site, thus making it my primary focus to try to make it proper for you and your site. Q. Do I plan to provide more or edit others articles to make things better for the Wiki? A. I may have; although, seeing this bombardment of "this is wrong", or "that is wrong", "this breaks that", "I think your this", or "There are a million of these", or "if we do this then others might want to add theirs" kind of statements here, it is really dissapointing to me on the part of you guys. I expected more, Guess I was wrong again. Honestly I think there is only one person above that even mentioned that they might try to help in some way and provided me with any sort of real description of what I "Should Add" to make it fit your standards. To him/her I give thanks for atlest trying. Others of you might also want to put yourselves in check in regards to your own bias-ness and / or nutrality on matters concerning this site or you might cause more damage to the site yourselves then working with someone to make a posted article proper. Sincerly, --Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: Err ... for one thing, WP:V does not stand for "vandalism," of which no one has accused you, nor do I see any evidence that is the case. It is verifiability. Every article on Wikipedia is required to be sourced by two or more "reliable sources," which are third-party, neutral, published sources specifically about the subject; game magazines, for instance. For another thing, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or forum, and you can understand we have specific policies and procedures which must be followed; I strongly recommend clicking on some of those links so that you can read those over. RGTraynor 08:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability and meet requirements of verifiability. Oppose any merge on the grounds that the material lacks verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 14 December 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 Special edition Pastordavid (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gold edition
Although there are many "gold edition" packages out there, this is an non-notable concept that cannot be verified. In addition, this article also qualifies as advertising and is made entirely out of original research. Marlith T/C 05:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I removed the most ad like paragraph of the article. Marlith T/C 05:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per comments at WT:VG. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Merge and redirect - Agree with Guyinblack25 below, thanks for bringing that up. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Merge andRedirect - I'd say integrate whatever is salvageable to Special edition#Video Games or just Special edition. The "Special edition" article is in terrible shape as it is, but is a more general topic that encompasses what "Gold edition" is about. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC))- In light of other comments, a merge of the current content seems impractical. Though I still believe redirecting it to Special edition is the best option. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC))
- Redirect to Special edition as this term is not exclusive to videogames. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, my "Gold Edition" copy of System Shock 2 didn't come with any expansion pack. I feel ripped off! (oh, and what everyone else said too). Lankiveil (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete I don't see how the information contained herein is worth merging. Looks unverifiable to me, whether in the relm of video games or the general sense. -Verdatum (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is patently untrue. Only some gold editions have expansion packs. Some of them are just glossy packages with printed manuals instead of PDFs 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Neverwinter Nights has a gold edition as a referance please see link NWN Gold--Pluto2spacebeam (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? This may be an example, but it is not a reference for the meaning of "gold edition". Regardless, this sort of discussion does not belong in an AFD. If you can improve the article such that it more clearly belongs on WP, you should do so directly so deletion can be avoided. -Verdatum (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as it is a marketing term that may mean different things depending on how the publisher desires to use it. It has no official meaning. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Re-word, or Merge*
- I am the creator of the article, and as such I have a few valid reasons for the retaining of the article.
- 1. If using an example of another product is a form of advertising, then many more articles should be considered as well, otherwise an example of some kind is needed to make the point.
- 2. Further elaboratation on what exactly a Gold edition is, and more examples of such 'golded' games.
- 3. The mention of a certain product, term, word, or what have you that sparks any interest for further investigation can thereby warrant the term advertising.
- That may too would seem to feed your belief that this is some type of advertising. Nevertheless unless you have some mention of this topic elsewhere, it needs to exist, at least for the time being. --Ben414 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 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, consensus is that is is notable enough especially after rewrite with sources. Davewild (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Color War
I don't think this game has enough notability/ WP:CRYSTAL VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was considering nominating this article for a while, actually. On the one hand, I know it is played at a lot of camps, but on the other, it doesn't make it into the news, as far as I've seen. This one's a tough call, which is why I'm not !voting just yet. I will say, though, that it does not look like a WP:CRYSTAL violation to me. WP:N perhaps, but not CRYSTAL. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I think it's an activity at every summer camp, there for there must be some notabilty out there for it. However this article pure original research if no improvments are made by the end of the AFD you can consider my vote delete. Ridernyc (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, only Jewish summer camps? Needs secondary sources to assert the subject's importance. Lankiveil (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Keep with improvement. this Google News search shows that the subject is indeed notable (it is covered in a number of sources in relation to schools and summer camps). The article as it currently stands is obviously somewhat inaccurate and OR-y. I can go in now and re-write the stub so that is more generalized and appropriate, but I don't have time to synthesize references right now. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Per Lamenta3. RuneWiki777 23:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Whether or not the article needs improvement, the game is notable & should be sourceable. DGG (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep based on the reliable sourcing provided, and the recent re-write. Pastordavid (talk) 19:20, 18 December 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 as blatant nonsense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hobiyashi
Fails WP:RS and WP:V; article may be elaborate (and homophobic) fake or seemingly every reference is hidden from detection. Several editors from the LGBT project tried to verify and were unable; prod tags were removed and editor seems to have only edited this article all adding up towards the hoax theory. This is my first AfD so apologies if I haven't worded this quite right. Benjiboi 05:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
* Comment. Deletion has been listed at WikiProject Japan. Benjiboi 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
* Comment. Deletion has been listed at WikiProject Taiwan. Benjiboi 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
* Comment. Deletion has been listed at WikiProject Korea. Benjiboi 05:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
* Comment. Deletion has been listed at WikiProject LGBT studies. Benjiboi 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC) (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. Benjiboi 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No Google hits, seems fake. -- ALLSTARecho 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) Delete. I was unable to find any sources that would indicate this is real. It is at best non-notable, and probably a hoax. Parts appear to be patent nonsense. Aleta (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An obvious case of WP:HOAX. None of the allegedly Japanese sentences quoted in the article makes any sense in Japanese language. --Saintjust (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obvious hoax. --DAJF (talk) 05:34, 12 December 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 I agree that it probable needs renamed - use the article's talk page to develop consensus, or boldly move it. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deanna Laney
Biographical article which is unencyclopedic in nature, for a subject who isn't notable outside of one event. No neutral version in the history, no version which is encyclopedic or meets our biographies of living persons present either. Totally orphaned within mainspace, a strong indicator that this article is not within the scope of an encyclopedia. Strongly advocate deletion. Daniel 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons stated above. This person is not notable, except for a passing incident. There are many murders and murder victims. We don't write about most of them. - Jehochman Talk 05:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is notable and extremely rare for someone to stone two of their children to death, and severely disable the third, believing it is God's teaching, and thus being found not guilty for reason of insanity. Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I restored this article because I believe the speedy deletion grounds were invalid. I also believe it should be kept now. The nomination leaves all the key questions unanswered. First, what makes it unencyclopedic? What WP:BLP1E says is that you shouldn't (necessarily) create an article on a person when there is an article on the event the person was involved in. In this case, that would be an article like Stoning of Laney children. I don't believe there is such an article about this event, and I don't think there should be because the event is defined almost solely by her. The nomination also claims the article is non-neutral, but provides no evidence whatsoever for this claim, and the nominator did not even bother to tag the article. Finally, why does this violate the BLP policy? Of course, it is about an LP, but I see no trace of libel. Superm401 - Talk 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would be extremely supportive of a move and refocus of the article to the title Stoning of Laney children. As you say, "I think it is notable and extremely rare for someone to stone two of their children to death, and severely disable the third, believing it is God's teaching" — I don't disagree, but I also believe the article about the mother is not notable, is a good example of a person who was only newsworthy for one incident, and hence doesn't have a place in an encyclopedia. Daniel 05:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I apologize for accidentally placing my vote above Jehochman's. There was an edit conflict. There is an addition to the nomination, claiming the page is orphaned. Of course, there is nothing in the guidelines saying that orphaned pages are inherently unencyclopedic. More importantly, the page is not orphaned. It is in two categories (not counting AFD). If there no mainspace links, that's partially because it was a redlink, which people avoid linking to, for 6 months. Superm401 - Talk 05:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- When an article is considered orphaned, it is not linked from another article (categories do not count, IIRC). Anyways,
delete as per Daniel. We should cover the event, not the person. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)keep and rename since that seems the option most agree with. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- When an article is considered orphaned, it is not linked from another article (categories do not count, IIRC). Anyways,
- Keep or rename as Stoning of Laney children or similar. I don't see how this violates BLP or is non neutral and a lack of wikification is hardly grounds for deletion. If the nominator thinks it should be rewritten he can rewrite it, that's not grounds for deletion either. As he seems to agree that it should just be renamed, why not be bold and rename it and withdraw this Afd? Nick mallory (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, appears to be sufficient sources and news coverage to assert notability for this person. I would not be adverse to a renaming, but see no reason why it must be done. Lankiveil (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Comment I would accept this option too, with a redirect from Deanna Laney. Superm401 - Talk 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Deanna Laney murders, notable enough event but at the current location it's a pseudobio. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:32, 12 December 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. Singularity 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Skateboading walrus style
Non-notable skateboarding term Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I dont think this should be deleted it is a real legit way of skateboarding. I have met several people who have skateboarded this way.Even though I do not have recources it is still real. It is a term I have heard used many many times when out skating. Please do not delete. This is a serious article. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylortjw9 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - non notable term. No reliable sources found. Sting_au Talk 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Something being "real" or existing doesn't automatically make it notable, though. No sources about this style available. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have put the essential content into Skateboarding tricks#Stances. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Thanks to Colonel Warden's efforts. I'd even consider a usage of the term within a Tony Hawk video game as a reasonable reference to verify this as more than just a neologism...but that's beyond the scope of this AFD now. -Verdatum (talk) 18:53, 12 December 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 20:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Snorkeling locations
Listcruft, bordering on advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Advertising does not seem an issue but would be an endless list. WP is not a guide book. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikitravel perhaps? I'm not terribly familiar with the project, so I'm not sure it's appropriate there. But yeah, doesn't belong here: WP:NOT#TRAVEL. -Verdatum (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. (Vote by article creator.) Cite a WP page that says this is not appropriate content. I do not think WP:NOT#TRAVEL is applicable, as this is not a guide to any one place, but rather a list of all places that support one activity. In what way is it substantially different from the many other such lists such as, for example, List of auto racing tracks? The list of snorkeling locations is potentially long; but long is not bad, merely encyclopedic. — Epastore (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I started this article based on diving locations. The snorkeling locations article at least cites useful links and has relatively neutral descriptions, while the diving locations article seems to be just lists of places where Wikipedians have dived (since, given the diverse nature of diving, absolutely any body of water is potentially a diving location). I would not think of deleting snorkeling locations if diving locations is not first considered for deletion. — Epastore (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply I agree, I would also like to see a page that more explicitly says this is not appropriate. Still, Other Stuff Exists is not a valid argument to keep a page. The community will fix other pages to meet concensus when it gets to them. This article looks like good information, so I would much rather see it put in its appropriate place than deleted entirely (and if it's already in its appropriate place, then jolly good). -Verdatum (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Diving locations also nominated for deletion, same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is curious that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diving_locations seems to be leaning toward a keep/merge, while this page seems to be leaning toward a delete. Regardless of "other stuff exists," why should these two discussions be so disparate, when the scope of each article is equally nebulous? — Epastore (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also found it somewhat curious that the two discussions are following to such different results. Of course, the two articles are quite different as well, don't forget. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is curious that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diving_locations seems to be leaning toward a keep/merge, while this page seems to be leaning toward a delete. Regardless of "other stuff exists," why should these two discussions be so disparate, when the scope of each article is equally nebulous? — Epastore (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a guide, nor is it a directory. Snorkeling is possible in any nody of water, the list tries to constrain itself by using 'popular' sites but none of them are referenced to establish this popularity. Nuttah (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a meaningless, overgeneralized, list. Pastordavid (talk) 19:18, 18 December 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 20:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sigma alpha sigma
WP:N, external link is broken - no real news article to support notability, fraternity is not a national/international fraternity- not notable. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Now it's REALLY not notable. The one and only "source" which was a broken link has not been removed from the article. I'll tagg it with Onesource. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Update: The user has now placed the broken link back into the article... -_- Charades do not work on Wikipedia... lol - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: No charades intended. I simply have been unable to properly link the intended page. I have permanently removed the link. Instead, I have cited the news article. Benjendav15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet notability guidelines. Should be included (merged?) here. They have not had independent coverage that would meet the guidelines. They are mentioned in articles simply as a descriptor or on the school's website as an approved organization. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:ORG. Two of the six references are just Wikipedia's own article on Ouachita Baptist University as copied to other web sites. The article with the broken link appears to be excerpted here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a non-notable organization. Pastordavid (talk) 19:17, 18 December 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. Singularity 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 Baltimore/Washington International Airport Runway Incursion
- 2007 Baltimore/Washington International Airport Runway Incursion (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)
This article describes a minor aviation incident. These kinds of incidents happen all over the world everyday and this one is not particularly notable. – Zntrip 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be a prime example of recentism. If there isn't anything more to the story than two planes being close to each other, this isn't notable. faithless (speak) 04:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable, these things happen all the time - Dumelow (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, a very non notable event. Nuttah (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Do not delete, this classifies as a runway incursion. User:Momoa
- You kind of lost credibility (which a fresh user account doesn’t have to begin with) when you vandalized my user page and repeatedly removed the AfD tag from the article. – Zntrip 01:27, 17 December 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. Davewild (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mighty District Five
(Contested PROD) This team doesn't seem to have more than a local sort of notability. I can't see that they meet notability guidelines. Joyous! | Talk 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Also possible conflict of interest issues based on the username of the article creator. -- Whpq (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unreferenced and falls well short of notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable Pastordavid (talk) 19:16, 18 December 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. Singularity 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apokalupis
Prod removed, so here we are. No refs in article, and google and allmusic couldn't find anything relevant other than this WP page. Only Ghit for "Blood Zombie Records" is also this Wikipedia article. Ravenna1961 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as A7: a band that doesn't assert notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for failing WP:BAND. Nuttah (talk) 19:33, 16 December 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. DS (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] LA-944
Delete nn jr ROTC program at a high school, no sourcing showing that this is notable among the literally 1000s of these Jr ROTC organizations or more notable than the high school band, glee club, model UN, thespian club, Spanish/German/French clubs, various sports teams, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NV-20012 for another from the same user. IceKarmaॐ 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the creator, I cannot see how the subject meets notability. Dlohcierekim 04:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No indication of notability. No reliable sources referenced. Sting_au Talk 05:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. When we have most military units of the world, including Algerian armoured divisions and Indonesian independent infantry battalions, with their own articles, maybe we can start to let this sort of stuff in. Right now it just reinforces our systematic bias. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. IceKarmaॐ 02:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:47, 12 December 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. Singularity 01:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NV-20012
Delete another nn jr ROTC organization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LA-944 for another from the same user. IceKarmaॐ 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 05:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I see nothing to indicate that this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill cadet unit. As such, I believe it is not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nom. Maybe however a list of JROTC units could be started with brief notes on each unit? Don't know. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There's nearly 800 AFJROTC units alone, and over 3200 between all branches. That'd be quite a list. IceKarmaॐ 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed... an Wikipedia is not a directory. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. IceKarmaॐ 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:48, 12 December 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. Singularity 01:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pokemon Names and Meanings
This appears to be an aborted attempt by a user to create a comprehensive list of Pokemon name meanings. While normally I would let it go for a while to see if anyone, the author or otherwise, was able to complete it, it seems to be practically begging for original research. Unless someone has a comprehensive reliable source that lists documented explanations of Pokemon names, I don't see how this can be a valid subject for an article. Powers T 03:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete cruft that has no claim of meeting WP:N or WP:FICTION, seems like WP:NOR as well Secret account 08:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Most of the names are obvious plays on words, but "obvious" doesn't mean "verifiable". Pure OR without sources, and even with sources deserving of nothing more than a sentence on the master list pages, or full articles where they exist (and in fact, most full articles do have explanations of the character names, eg. Bulbasaur, Pikachu). ~Matticus UC 09:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete oh.. did you know Ekans is Snake backwards? WP:TRIVIA. User:Krator (t c) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, and speculation, by a undoubtably well meaning if misguided editor. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Numerous policy violations as above. •97198 talk 14:43, 16 December 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. Singularity 02:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3 video game
Contested prod. This appears to be a content fork of parts of Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series), and seems to be substantially similar to that article from this section onward. I have no idea what this article is supposed to be doing, and the author has been uncommunicative. Powers T 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)#Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3 as a content fork. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect fork + character list User:Krator (t c) 11:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and Redirect - looks like he did a copy and paste, truely pointless as well. Fangz of Blood 15:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete then redirect. --Jack Merridew 09:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Don't bother redirecting It's a crappy naming convention for an article, anyway. Just delete. SharkD (talk) 08:05, 16 December 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. Singularity 02:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Judge Regan Miller
Creator feels I was overly hasty in deleting this. Locally notable judge who has unconventional views. I do not see significant media coverage, so here we are. Dlohcierekim 03:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I find only locl news coverage when searching google news. Dlohcierekim 04:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- As Creator I am bound to argue for relevance. The facts are verifiable through the NPR citations included. I would ask that the decision be based on the inherent notability of a Judge participating in the re-emergence of the Bastardy-laws by in effect asserting that bastard children are the principle cause of every imaginable social ill.Benjamin Gatti (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI see a link to a local station broadcast. I do not find any mention of him when I search for subject + NPR. Dlohcierekim 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- C[[13]] is a link to the WFAE web page. WFAE is the local NPR Affiliate for Charlotte.NC.US. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note, though, that NPR affiliates will often broadcast local news along with networked shows such as, say, A Prairie Home Companion. That unfortunately does not make the news notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- C[[13]] is a link to the WFAE web page. WFAE is the local NPR Affiliate for Charlotte.NC.US. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- CommentI see a link to a local station broadcast. I do not find any mention of him when I search for subject + NPR. Dlohcierekim 04:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I was the original nominator and I do not feel that this passes WP:N. A [14] quick Google search yields nothing notable. meshach (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - on notability grounds. A comparatively minor jurist who makes a silly statement on local radio. The radio interview is a primary source. There are no apparent secondary sources (eg followup media reporting). The judge's comments have made no particular impact on laws surrounding illegitimacy or any other legal issue. Lastly, as the guideline states, notability is not temporary. Will anyone recall these comments(or Judge Miller) in ten years? Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete, sources exist, but I'm not convinced that this judge is notable outside of his own community. The article also has serious POV problems. Lankiveil (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete for both source problems and POV - the comments on the judge's opinions would also need sourcing to demonstrate their falseness Jeodesic (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Self-fulfilling prophesies do not need to be false to be hate-speech. Disparaging individuals for circumstances beyond their control is always hate-speech, even when completely correct. Society often gets the results it predicts (need examples or is your history up to snuff)? Benjamin Gatti (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - created as attack page. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete article serves no purpose other than to disparage its subject. Remove that and you have, essentially, nothing. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I suppose we should nominate NAZI next? on the same grounds? Benjamin Gatti (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles need to be about notable subjects. Notability is determined having regard for the notability guidelines. The actions of the Nazi Party made an enduring (negative) contribution to the historical record and continue to be discussed in countless reliable sources. Regan Miller's silly comments on a local radio station make no enduring contribution to anything (be it legal thinking, state or national laws, whatever) and have not been followed up by coverage in reliable secondary sources. I will leave aside the offensiveness of equating the perpetrators of the Holocaust with some nobody giving a local radio interview, and simply note the existence and accuracy of Godwin's law. Euryalus (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Eeeeeewwwwwww! Dlohcierekim 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose we should nominate NAZI next? on the same grounds? Benjamin Gatti (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as per discussion here. One showing on an NPR radio show at a station does not make notability, especially if the show is a local show and not broadcast over the NPR feed itself. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above - I have also taken the liberty of deleting the controversial POV content for the moment. LeContexte (talk) 11:06, 13 December 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. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Environmental Employment in Canada
Topic is non-notable. Delete' GJ (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete'. I also think this falls under WP:NOT#DIR. There's no single idea, thing or group, here. 17:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn in Montreal (talk • contribs)
- Keep. We have numerous articles in Category:Employment. This one needs editing, but it is well sourced and has real data that would be of interest both to people researching environmental careers and to those who think environmentalists are a waste of money. --agr (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- This article isn't in keeping with what Category:Employment is actually meant for: it's an overview category of general concepts in employment, which contains no articles about individual fields of employment in particular countries. This kind of thing just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 14 December 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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Turkov
An article on an author of two books, Divisible by Four (which appears to be self-published) and Marshmallows in Chocolate (coverage of which appears limited to this article). While I've found some evidence he contributed to the "Russian Weekly 'Courier' (Israel)", I see nothing to support the claim that Turkov "is also known as an author of numerous articles in the US Russian Media." Indeed, I've found no actual piece about Turkov or his work. The product of Mturkov (talk · contribs), a single purpose account, the article likely runs counter to WP:AUTO. I note that there is another writer named Mark Turkov, born 1904. Victoriagirl (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, definite COI issues, based on the lack of sources, I'm not convinced he's particularly notable as a journalist. Lankiveil (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete, COI and not notable. - Dumelow (talk) 14:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete, definately COI and not notable.Osli73 (talk) 14:58, 12 December 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.
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G1 by Acroterion (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Assochist
This may well go the way of the last nn neologism I sent to afd. Delete, non-notable neologism. I get 14 Unique Google hits, so I think it's not in common usage. Dlohcierekim 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 03:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh for the love of He who is noodly in appearance! Delete, move to someone's BJAODN. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:27, 12 December 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 garbage. DS (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Club Docmur
This article is unsourced and reads much like a hoax article. JodyB talk 02:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unamusing hoax. --DAJF (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete hoax. Maralia (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete obvious hoax - Dumelow (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It smells like a hoax to me. The paragraph on the talk page pretty much confirms it. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:54, 12 December 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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bear Valley Road (Mojave Desert region, California)
Not a notable road. AL2TB Gab or Tab 01:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, only references in the article are for the development along it, not for the road itself. Why did you take this to AfD? The prod would have still gotten the page deleted without needing a full AfD. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete re above. I've been on this road, and it is just another suburban arterial. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. hmm - it ain't snowing yet ;) — master sonT - C 03:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The road itself possesses no notability, merely projects that are to be developed along the road. I feel a snowstorm is heading this way, by the way. --Son (talk) 00:21, 16 December 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. John254 00:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kullawada
NN dance. No sources to indicate any sense of satisfying WP:N. meshach (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) meshach (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I rewrote the article and added a source. Not sure how to gauge notability of Bolivian folk dances. Folk dances should be inherently notable as part of a regions culture. Dlohcierekim 03:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with the comment above: a folk dance is inherently notable. The best sources are probably offline and in Spanish, but we have enough to verify its existence, so it should stay. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep
Delete, The only sentence is directly taken from the first source violating WP:C.GtstrickyTalk or C 15:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) - Keep Refs establish the dance as culturally significant. Chubbles (talk) 16:48, 13 December 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. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Canadian Centre for Environmental Education
- The article fails to assert notability. The article fails WP:ORG. Delete GJ (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Failed to find any independent discussion of this org via Google. At least the first 3 pages of results (for me) seem to be press releases, the org's own site, etc. Delete --Skud (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per GJ -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 08:26, 15 December 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, nom votes keep with only keep !votes present. Non-admin closure. sh¤y 17:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WEZS (AM)
NN radio station. Nothing that meets WP:N is currently in the article. (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Keep the article has been considerably improved now. meshach (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Question Isn't there precedent for keeping most radio station articles? Zagalejo^^^ 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - To answer Zagalejo...Yes, there is. The page could use an infobox, standard AMQ, AML, and AMARB links...otherwise, the page shows the origins of New Hampshire's first radio station. The call sign is also a former call sign of another station, so cross-referencing can be used here (and on the other page) as well. - NeutralHomer T:C 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Updates to the infobox and the page itself have been made. Standard AMQ, AML, and AMARB links have been added. - NeutralHomer T:C 08:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - (edit conflict) per set precedents. Rare licensed AM Smooth Jazz radio station (I know its jazz, and generally jazz articles get snuffed out) which needs cleanup and third party references as opposed to deletion. Even then, proposed Wikipedia:Notability (media) asks for articles to be merged than deleted if they fail the tests there. --tgheretford (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Radio Stations has been informed of this ongoing discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A radio station that's been on the air since 1922 isn't notable?? I'm certain that many more references over the years could be found. But as it is, there's enough material here to justify an article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article is pretty much unreferenced at present. There is a precedent for keeping articles about government licensed radio station the programming of which is at least in part locally produced (to exclude translator transmitters and relays). The reason for any such "presumed notability" or "inherent notability" is that such a station is generally an important part of the local or regional culture and economy, and that diligent search could produce multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, which would (given the ability to access paywall sources) satisfy [[W{|N the Wikipedia notability requirement]]. I am not presently able to view the full text, but there is at least some coverage in several reliable sources. A Google News search [15] shows articles about the station (WEZS) when it was purchased in 1988 (Phil. Inquirer, May 26, 1988). Many of the stories thus found arenot about the station are or likely directory listings. Edison (talk) 17:18, 12 December 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. I looked at all the sources brought forward here and in the article. I found them to be either press releases from a company hiring him or in a magazine apparently published by his own management company according to the article itself. I suspect he's notable enough for an article but currently none of the sources referenced are independent of obvious COI conflicts relating to his career. Pigman☿ 03:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: My bad. This story was independent. But I'm not changing the decision. Pigman☿ 03:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Griffin Guess
Article is full of POV and does not appear to be notable. It has a single source but the remainder of the article sounds like a bad joke. JodyB talk 02:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Self promoting nonsense. Watchsmart (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NN. Doesn't appear to qualify for speedy deletion. --DAJF (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete The weird thing is I can't tell if it's a horrid vanity article by the subject or a prank by someone else on the subject. Either way, how did it make it this far? ΨνPsinu 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Needs major cleanup, but appears to be notable [16] - See section that states he handles post production on about 80% of videos on MTV. Also [17], [18] Shell babelfish 22:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Shell's sources (especially the MTV work) assert notability. Also, I'm curious as to how exactly he meets a CSD criterion. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:03, 22 December 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, consensus is that it is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sympoe
non notable neologism superβεεcat 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As nonnotable neologism. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NEO - Dumelow (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as informative. It is an article on a Poetry Form, of which there are many on wiki. And in fact, is encouraged by the Poetry Project Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Mcoghlan 15:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.10.78 (talk)
- Delete. The article confesses that it is a neologism invented this year. The article can be recreated if the word ever moves into commo usage. Nuttah (talk) 19:53, 16 December 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 one WP:V source (the USA Today article linked below) added is so slight in its mention and coverage of CLARE (approx. four sentences), it can't substantiate enough information to support the article. Pigman☿ 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CLARE Foundation
Looks like spam and fails WP:COI. No significant third party coverage either. Nv8200p talk 02:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as blatant advertising, and tagged as such. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, there are problems with the way the article's written, but that can be remedied. The organization has garnered local media coverage in LA as well as coverage in a USA Today story.[19] On that basis, it meets WP:ORG for non-commercial orgs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've eliminated the promotional lingo and added links, categories and the USA Today citation to the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 12 December 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 by user:Lectonar. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NikeSB.org
Not notable. Reads like an advertisement. The sources given do not establish notability: they are non-notable publications such as a student newspaper and/or only very briefly mention the topic without providing any significant amount of information about it. Coppertwig (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete A7. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete' : Delete as “Spam” or merge into Nike. Shoessss | Chat 02:36, 12 December 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 ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mooch-fest
Declined speedy as it does make sense. NN neologism. Dlohcierekim 02:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per my own Triple N Theory (non-notable neologism). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 432 ghits, and that includes instances where "mooch-fest" is a proper noun. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - nonsense. jj137 ♠ Talk 02:34, 12 December 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 under CSD:U1 (essentially, user blanked page). Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "The Massacre of Heartbreak Morrow"
Blatant advert for a book published yesterday. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Author blanked the page, speedy requested. KnightLago (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising, possible speedy. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as ad. jj137 ♠ Talk 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as spam. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete : Delete as “Spam” Shoessss | Chat 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Spamaliscious - just advertisement. SkierRMH (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Promotional spam. Maxamegalon2000 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Most definitely spam. Love the inclusion of the "About the Author" at the bottom, cheesy photo and all. Ringo380 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 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, consensus is that article fails notability guidelines as it does not have reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Saint-Amour
Another very old person with nothing to be said about them other than born X, died Y, aged Z and some irrelevant WP:OR commentary. The only references in the article are brief entries in lists, and when I tried a google search I found no further coverage in reliable sources (it's mostly blog entries and wiki mirrors). Without substantial coverage in reliable sources, this person fails WP:BIO and WP:BIO1E. He is already listed in Oldest people and Oldest validated person by year of birth, so the article should be deleted; all the referenced data is already in the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep : Sorrry --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • contribs. I believe that “….very old people”, as you put it, do deserve an article just for the fact that they are Supercentenarian. Hopefully, one day, we will all have an article in our name for this fact. Shoessss | Chat 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure how much material you expect to find about this guy on the Internet. It's easy to prove Edna Parker's notability because she is an Internet-era supercentarian, but any newspaper articles about Joe are probably offline (and in French),
and I don't think this AFD should be closed unless someone does the proper research.Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- If at some later date someone finds substantive coverage in the print archives of French newspapers in Quebec, and if that adds up to more than a lone obituary, an article can be written ... but there's no guarantee that such coverage exists, because not all these very old peopel achieved any recognition in their own lifetimes. In the meantime, all we have is a factoid from a list, which belongs in a list. This substub article offers nothing beyond what's already covered in Oldest validated person by year of birth and oldest people, so there is no need to split it out from the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stop waiting for "someone" to do the research, pull your finger out, and do the research yourself. Do a Google Books search and discover, as I did, that there's only one occurrence of this name in a book, and it is in a book published years after this person died so is unlikely to be the same person. Do a Google News Archive search (The archive goes back to the 1850s for some North American newspapers.) and discover, as I did, that this person is not mentioned in any newspaper articles at all. There are no sources from which a biographical article can be written. This is a stub that is incapable (because there are no sources to use) of being expanded into a full article, and should be redirected per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- While I believe you make an excellent point in encouraging someone to do their own research, I believe your finger comment is not productive. User:benjendav 16:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, look through my recent contributions. I'm perfectly capable of doing research. I've helped save several articles from deletion within the past couple weeks.
You're assuming that Google books is comprehensive, which is hardly true. I've just searched for random lines from some of the books I have near my computer, and came up empty. Google News archive is also missing lots of stuff. I've found subtantial articles using the Chicago Tribune PDF archives that aren't listed there. It's remotely possible that there is more information somewhere, but it might take some time to find it. I'm not trying to pass the buck; I'll do what I can. Zagalejo^^^ 19:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming anything about Google Books. For one thing, there have been several occasions here at AFD in the past where I and other editors have all seen different results from Google Books. But I am applying our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy properly: Something is only verifiable if either there is a citation that tells the reader where the source is or a reasonable effort to locate sources on the parts of editors turns up sources. Arguing that even though there are no sources cited or to be found "someone" might find sources, and that editors who have made reasonable efforts to locate sources (The nominator even told you explicitly what xe had done to look for sources.) have not done "proper research" is both fallacious and insulting to those editors. Editors who, like BrownHairedGirl, go looking for sources first and come to AFD only when they don't find any are to be encouraged, not insulted. Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- One point which concerns me here is that some editors appear to be trying to invert the burden of proof. Wikipedia:NOTE#_note-0 is clear about this: "Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof."
Zagalejo's argument here seems to be that a topic should be presumed notable unless notability can be disproven, which is an inversion of the guideline. I have no objection to performing some due diligence, and where refs are available I will add them (as with Mary Christian), but I do object to the keep-because-something-may-turn-up approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)-
- Do note I never actually made a keep argument. I just thought it was a matter-of-fact observation, and I stand by it: there's lots of information that's still unavailable on the Internet, and you're not going to change my mind. (Leaving Google Books/News behind, there are also thousands of magazines and journals that aren't electronically archived anywhere.) My comment was not meant to reflect on BrownHairedGirl's effort, but rather her assumption that she could make absolute statements about someone who died in the pre-Internet era. Zagalejo^^^ 00:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've blotted the last line of my first comment, since I realize that is asking a bit much. It would probably take much longer than five days to do the sort of research I'm thinking of. Zagalejo^^^ 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- One point which concerns me here is that some editors appear to be trying to invert the burden of proof. Wikipedia:NOTE#_note-0 is clear about this: "Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof."
- I'm not assuming anything about Google Books. For one thing, there have been several occasions here at AFD in the past where I and other editors have all seen different results from Google Books. But I am applying our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy properly: Something is only verifiable if either there is a citation that tells the reader where the source is or a reasonable effort to locate sources on the parts of editors turns up sources. Arguing that even though there are no sources cited or to be found "someone" might find sources, and that editors who have made reasonable efforts to locate sources (The nominator even told you explicitly what xe had done to look for sources.) have not done "proper research" is both fallacious and insulting to those editors. Editors who, like BrownHairedGirl, go looking for sources first and come to AFD only when they don't find any are to be encouraged, not insulted. Uncle G (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable; fails WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 17:50, 12 December 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.
{{subst:Afd top}} {{subst:#if: | {{subst:#switch: {{{1}}} | d = delete. | k = keep. | nc = no consensus to delete, default to keep. | m = merge. | r = redirect. | {{{1}}} }}}} {{subst:#if: | {{{2}}} }} speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12 by TeaDrinker (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rashidul Bari
I declined speedy as a repost as the previous edit summary seemed to be about google hits. Asserts notability but is incoherent, so it's hard to figure. Dlohcierekim 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete an intellectual but without reliable sources to assert notability. The content is promotional junk. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A look at creator's talk page suggests that this is an amalgamation of essays, deleted articles, and WP:OR and that he is using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Dlohcierekim 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There's a similar spam page here. It's possibly the creator's sockpuppet. 76.236.68.145 (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - seems to pretty much be a test page to me (somewhat). jj137 ♠ Talk 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I thought so too. You have to go through Special:DeletedContributions/Gesare_Perez to fully appreciate it. He's created fragments of this that have been deleted. Similar deletions amongSpecial:DeletedContributions/Rashidul_Bari Dlohcierekim 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can anons vote? If so, Delete. 76.236.68.145 (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but Articles for deletion is not a voting process. Oh and delete as spam. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 03:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete : Sorry to say at this time. Hopefully, in the near future, he will be a featured article. Shoessss | Chat 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It got deleted. 76.254.90.13 (talk) 04:38, 12 December 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. Singularity 02:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gey-freezing State Reserve
It's some kind of hoax, though I can't see why anyone would bother. Probably this is a sincere contribution, but it's either a duplicate of Gey-Gel State Reserve or something else under the wrong name. "Freezing" is not the Azeri word for blue (the translation of lake is correct, afaik) and there are no non-WP related google hits at all for "gey-freezing". It's also very short and unreferenced, so no great loss. Moyabrit (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax per nom. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Hal peridol (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as it doesn't seem to exist. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless sources are found to establish notability and differentiate it from a possible hoax. --Hdt83 Chat 02:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. —dima/talk/ 03:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as hoax. Shoessss | Chat 02:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure it's intended to be a hoax--the text seems to be describing Gey-Gel State Reserve--maybe just a translation error? Still can probably be deleted as an 'unlikely redir' to that article, and the lack of sources makes any merging seem unwise. Ravenna1961 (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, the reason for my !vote changes - since the reserve apparently does exist, this would make it seem more like a poorly-translated tourist blurb for it. Perhaps a redirect is in order? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I copyedited Gey-Gel State Reserve which does exist (and its article has reflinks), so I noticed the resemblence too. I don't think this article is malicious - so I'm changing the "hoax" sentence above - but it does have the wrong name for some reason, and there's so little context that it's hard to guess what the real subject is. If it's a real place, let someone recreate the article later. This one is too confused to be any use. Moyabrit (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, the reason for my !vote changes - since the reserve apparently does exist, this would make it seem more like a poorly-translated tourist blurb for it. Perhaps a redirect is in order? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - as hoax, can find no reliable sourcing. — Rudget Contributions 19:01, 12 December 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. Singularity 02:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse
All of these books already have their own articles. I can't even see what purpose this article is meant to serve. faithless (speak) 01:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - I agree with faithless. there are already articles about these books, and even one about the whole series. i don't see any reason anyone would search for that term either.Sudoku424 (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom and above. Duplicate information. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec)Delete as redundant to the article Twilight (series), as well as the articles for the individual books. I'd recommend redirect if this were at all a likely search string. Deor (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Twilight (series). Obviously redundant with other articles. No harm in creating the redirect. Aleta (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Twilight (series). Obviously redundant with other articles.Osli73 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 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. Singularity 02:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joe Griffin
Entirely non-notable search engine optimization consultant. Smacks of self promotion, and is poorly written. Watchsmart (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. jj137 ♠ Talk 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The provided 'references' appear to consist of articles he's written and brief mentions of websites he's associated with—no independent coverage to establish his notability. Maralia (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no substantial independent coverage, does not appear to be notable. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. It's a frickin' resume, not a WP piece. You'd think a halfway decent search optimization consultant would be smart enough to design a WP entry that would be less blatantly detectable as lookatmespam... ΨνPsinu 20:43, 12 December 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. I will leave a redirect to Oldest people. — Scientizzle 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Auguste Pahl
Another very old person with nothing else to be said about them other than born died, aged was X. The only references in the article are brief entries in lists, and when I tried a google search I found no further coverage in reliable sources. Without substantial coverage in reliable sources, this person fails WP:BIO. She is already listed in Oldest people and Oldest validated person by year of birth, so the article should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- P.S. See also WP:BIO1E, which she also fails. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
- Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. Inclusion in a list is appropriate and sufficient. Edison (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 17:54, 12 December 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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gardy Gonzalez
Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and I could not find any external coverage or reliable sources. Crystallina (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as apparent vanity page and per nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per his website, only recently recorded his first demo, has a whopping 28 friends on myspace, and no independent coverage. Not notable. Maralia (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Snigbrook (talk) 20:27, 12 December 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. — Scientizzle 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lexus JX
violation of WP:Crystal Ball. No sources cited, even the word "rumored" is used to describe the vehicle Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Definite violation of WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure speculation. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. Remarkably, this article has been around since November, 2005. If it can just hold on for a few more months it may even come out of its crystal ball mode. It certainly could use some references, though. Tim Ross·talk 17:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If and when the car in question is produced, solid facts will start to appear, and it's possible an article can be made. At this point, though, it's unsourced crystal-balling. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:00, 12 December 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 soft redirect to National longevity recordholders. Okay, we've got sources that indicate that Ms. Booyson is an appropriate entry in lists such as the above. What we don't have is any such sources that provide biographical details of the type in the article. Therefore, I'll create a soft redirect--that is, redirect to the list, but leave the current history in place--in order to allow additional research to be performed to properly attribute the biographical details. If such sources are found, the article can be re-established and re-evaluated. — Scientizzle 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Johanna Booyson
Another very old person, with only trivial list-style references. My google search threw up nothing in any reliable sources, let alone anything substantive to meet WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are any number of people who were once the oldest in the world who have articles here. They are notable people. Qworty (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not seem to pass the notability test.Osli73 (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. Some of them are notable; others such, as this one, are quite sufficiently covered in lists such as Oldest people (which includes Booyson), because is there nothing to say about her which is not already in the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. National longevity recordholders shows that the longevity record holder of a country is considered notable. The ghits spit out a whole bunch of sources. Taking all of them in the aggregate, I think that she is sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply The test in WP:BIO is substantive coverage in reliable sources. Counting ghits is no substitute for the lack of proper sources; no amount of entries in blogs or wikipedia mirrors alters the fact that there is so little available in reliable sources that there is almost nothing to say about her. Most of the article is unsourced, and if trimmed back to what's available in reliable sources, it would amount to only one line. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
*Keep. Obviously! Hey, BrownHairedGirl, go back to being a robot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Screwyoubitch (talk • contribs) 00:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) — Screwyoubitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per above. For a reliable source for her being a supercentenarian, try this. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't dispute that she is a supercentenarian, but the ref you provide offers no substantial coverage: it's a list entry. Please see WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete She may be the oldest in her country, but otherwise she fails WP:RS and WP:BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to National longevity recordholders. I think the article is better off as an entry there--Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd just like to reiterate what I said above: it's not fair to use the Internet to determine this woman's notability, since she died in 1968. It's easy to prove Edna Parker's notability, since she is an Internet-era supercentarian, but it might require some actual library research to properly judge earlier record-holders. Zagalejo^^^ 05:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- So do yourself a Google Books search, and discover, as I did, that this person accrues exactly one line in one book — the Guinness Book of World Records 1981. As pointed out, there is no source material from which to construct a biographical article. This person is one line in a list outside of Wikipedia, so should be one line in a list inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources do. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Google Books isn't comprehensive, though. And Google News Archives only offers a fraction of what actually exists in print. Zagalejo^^^ 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- If at some later date someone finds substantive coverage in the print archives of newspapers in the Transvaal, and if that adds up to more than a lone obituary, an article can be written. In the meantime, all we have is a factoid which belongs in a list. Meanwhile, this substub article offers nothing beyond what's already covered in National longevity recordholders and oldest people, so there is no need to split it out from the lists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Google Books isn't comprehensive, though. And Google News Archives only offers a fraction of what actually exists in print. Zagalejo^^^ 10:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- So do yourself a Google Books search, and discover, as I did, that this person accrues exactly one line in one book — the Guinness Book of World Records 1981. As pointed out, there is no source material from which to construct a biographical article. This person is one line in a list outside of Wikipedia, so should be one line in a list inside Wikipedia. Wikipedia should reflect what the sources do. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect as per User:Lenticel above. I suspect that we're going to find it very difficult to verify a lot of the claims in this bio, apart from her age. If more print sources are found that will allow the construction of a more substantial article, then we can approach that at a later date. Lankiveil (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Keep The Guinness Book of Records, an acceptable source no doubt, tells us she was at one time the oldest person in the world. As notability does not expire on Wikipedia, this means she's notable enough for an article. She is still the oldest ever South African. Nick mallory (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those two facts are already included in the relevant lists (National longevity recordholders and oldest people), but the criteria for a standalone article are more stringent. Per WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, some substantive coverage is needed in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. Guinness Book of Records is an acceptable source, but it does not offer substantive coverage of each of its record-holders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - as she was (however briefly) the oldest living person in the world, I'd think this one passes the bar of notability. - fchd (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
(UTC)
- Delete Just getting old does not satisfy WP:BIO. The two references are just directory listings and lack substantial coverage, which is necessary to show notability. Edison (talk) 17:29, 12 December 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. Singularity 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Mutch
Fails notability. The article says two things about Bob Mutch's life: that he was an employee of various firms and that he developed a search engine optimization system called "Inbound Link Quality." The former note is obviously not notable, and judging by the lack of media references and unimpresive Google results, neither is the latter. Smacks of self promotion, actually. Watchsmart (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. fails WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like vanity self-promotion and fails notability. Qworty (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No non-trivial independent coverage to establish notability. Mentioning Novell certification in a biographical article is a big red resume flag. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, a pretty badly disguised résumé. Lankiveil (talk) 11:04, 12 December 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 Nom withdrawn and per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sumner MEGA High School
non notable highschool. the meganess of this highschool could be fixed with a simple pagemove. The lack of notability can't Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn
- Keep, It seems that the school was the first high school open to African-Americans west of the Mississippi, back in 1875.[20] I've put the source on the page. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep high schools are acccepted as prima facie notable, a fortiori, this one. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It was created as a stub for the opportunity to expand upon it. The page was created today, a google search might not reveal notable sources; but, that does not mean they do not exist in a local archive, etc.--Kenneth M Burke (talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ditto keep, published book source cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs) 01:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep first african-american high-school west of the Mississippi. Arthurrh (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - first african-american high-school west of the Mississippi is notable. Tiptoety (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and move to Charles Sumner High School or Sumner High School. A Google Scholar search for "Sumner High School" got what should amount to some reliable sources. The article is apparently misnamed, which is where this AfD came from. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it should be renamed, but location will probably be required, there are other Sumner High Schools, for example the google search shows one in Kansas City. Probably Sumner High School (St. Louis) Arthurrh (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That will probably be fine. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it should be renamed, but location will probably be required, there are other Sumner High Schools, for example the google search shows one in Kansas City. Probably Sumner High School (St. Louis) Arthurrh (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - definitely notable given information added. Hal peridol (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and rename. I'll leave the rename outside of the AFD,but the discussion has it spot on. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - obviously notable. The nominator should reconsider his approach. AfDing an article 109 minutes after creation is wrong; initially the page should have been tagged for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Strong claims and evidence of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per pretty much everyone. Maxamegalon2000 06:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious, strong keep: I presume the extreme claim of notability pointed out by AnteaterZot was unknown at the time of the AfD. Someone please WP:SNOWball this. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you to those that gave their support to keep this contribution to Wikipedia. --Kenneth M Burke (talk) 21:38, 12 December 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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Voniak
Seems to be a hoax made up by someone with too much time on their hands, not to mention fails WP:NOTE. Tiptoety (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Author note- This article is NOT a hoax and shoud not be considered for deletion. Voniak is a special version of stuffed animal, and I believe it has significance enough to be included in the list of toys. I'm sorry you don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voniak (talk • contribs)
- Speedy delete. Nonsense. Corvus cornixtalk 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Author note- Well maybe it looks like nonsense, but it's the real thing and as such I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia which aims to gather the knowledge about everything (if I'm not mistaken). There's much bigger nonsense than this around. Definitely I think this is suitable for Stuffed animal subcategory, if such exists. It's too late where I'm from so I'm not in a mood to argue, so I;m just sorry you don't see the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voniak (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- You are quite mistaken. Read WP:V, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. And no, I don't see the point. Should we have an article on everybody's stuffed animals? This is not MySpace. Corvus cornixtalk 00:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Author note- Well maybe it looks like nonsense, but it's the real thing and as such I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia which aims to gather the knowledge about everything (if I'm not mistaken). There's much bigger nonsense than this around. Definitely I think this is suitable for Stuffed animal subcategory, if such exists. It's too late where I'm from so I'm not in a mood to argue, so I;m just sorry you don't see the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voniak (talk • contribs) 00:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This article should be a poster child for speedy deletion. Qworty (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Jeez! --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:MADEUP. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Strong DeleteAvalanche -no hits on a google search. There are no sources, and I doubt any can be found. Even, if as the author claims, it is real (which I highly doubt), there is no way to reference it properly.Per Sudoku424 and WP:SNOW. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Very Strong Really Speedy Delete - if you go to the website that the article says about it, it even says right there that the author has made this up themselves. in their words, "voniak- adjective : Any crazy critter (like the one sitting on Voniak) is called by me a voniak...b'coz it is crazy" that website also has a link to "my other crazy critters". note the word my. Sudoku424 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. "There's much bigger nonsense than this around"?! Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Snowball delete. In addition to all the above, let's not forget WP:OR --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 02:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Not because it's nonsense, not because it's not notable (which it's not), but because somebody is using this as a webhost for their homemade irritant toy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable, OR, WP:Neologism Aleta (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, if nothing else, it falls under WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
- Delete - non-notable vanity page. LeContexte (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and everybody else. GtstrickyTalk or C 15:45, 12 December 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 Merge with rhinoplasty. — Scientizzle 17:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non surgical nose job
This small unsourced article exists solely to promote "Alexander Rivkin, M.D.," either by mentioning him directly in the article, linking to sources written by him, linking to YouTube vids of him performing the procedure, etc. The guy even has the term trademarked. <eleland/talkedits> 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Merge into rhinoplasty if it can be done so without reference to AR, M.D. If this really is a relatively new procedure, I can imagine it being of interest to many people, but better if it's not solely linked to one guy. ΨνPsinu 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with rhinoplasty and add sources. And I was so tempted to say "redirect to boxing" but common sense prevailed. 23skidoo (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. ABC news, USAtoday. I think that's enough for a starter. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with rhinoplasty or Delete. This topic seems to have minimal coverage/notability, if the lack of references is any indicator, and if it's worth discussing at all, rhinoplasty is the logical place. Tim Ross·talk 23:01, 17 December 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.