Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 9
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 Speedy delete (A7). SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] UP 49ers
Author contested PROD; this page is about a non-notable student organization with no sourcing, and there are serious NPOV violations, leading me to believe there's a COI on the part of the author. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - IMO can be speedied A7 as there's no assertion of notability (if you read the two "notable alumni", they're allegedly notable for their positions in this club. Not tagged as we may as well let this run — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I stuck a Speedy Delete tag on it. Article makes no assertion of notability. Smashville 03:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A Goofy Movie. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Roxanne (Goofy Movie)
This article pertains to a character that is deemed not notable (even though I created the article) and has already been merged into A Goofy Movie. leemcd56 23:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to A Goofy Movie, nominator even admits that content has been merged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect. Has only appeared in one film and one episode of House of Mouse. Besides, her role in A Goofy Movie isn't very significant. This article basically sums up the plot of the film. The Prince of Darkness 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gunnelbobbing
While not quite a thing made up in school on day, with a mighty 3 Ghits, I don't see how this one's notable (no press coverage of any kind that I can see), and I'm unable to see any way this article can be salvaged. The "reference" is about BASE jumping, not this — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC):
Keep, needs serious work but plenty under the more common "gunnel bobbing" which is referenced over at Canoeing as 'gunnel-bobbed'. – Zedla 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You're absolutely right and I'm ashamed to admit, it didn't occur to me to split the words. Trying the alternate spelling of Gunwale bobbing shows we already have this as a subsection of "Canoe", so I'm going to leave this AfD open to get a consensus of whether to delete this as a content fork & redirect, or leave it as a separate article. At the moment I still think the separate article needs so much work it might be easier to wipe it out & start again (I don't volunteer to do this, as I know nothing about the subject) — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete did some digging to see if it could be saved, the ref is fake per my notes on the the talk page. There are a few sentences in the first paragraph that could be merged into Canoeing (or could form a very bare stand alone article) but the rest of it is a hoax – Zedla 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge anything useful from the article into Canoe. Hal peridol 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as likely hoax. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdraws nomination. Yossiea (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yitzchak Berkovits
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Non-Notable and sounds like a commercial advertisement. Yossiea (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, there are no sources on this page and it looks like WP:OR, based on the first contributor to this entry. Yossiea (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Provisional Keep Unless there are two rabbis with the same name (obviously possible), a quick Google-skim makes him seem obviously notable, as he seems to turn up all over the place. Hopefully, a Hebrew speaker can check Israeli sources as to whether this is actually the case — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the head of Aish Hatora for so many years is indeed notable--יודל 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as he is famous and notable as a rabbi to the Baal teshuvas ("returnees" to Orthodox Judaism) in Jerusalem, particularly his work at the key Aish HaTorah institution. IZAK 04:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, notability established as per above. --MPerel 08:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Rabbi Berkovits is very highly regarded. He is the main posek for the English speaking community in Jerusaelm today. One day he will be from the Gedolei HaDor(great Rabbis of the generation). His efforts in rent control have spawned similar movements in neighborhoods all around haredi Jerusaelm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
* Keep Rabbi is top American Rabbi in Jerusalem, thousands of followers and admirers. Also is leading authority on Loshon Hora and is author of CHofetz Chaim: A Lesson a Day (Artscroll) http://www.artscroll.com/Books/LADH.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a copyvio per WP:CSD#G12. But|seriously|folks 03:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lee Ae jung
Wikipedia is not a memorial. Article didn't seem to qualify for a7, but it still shouldn't is not notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 22:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If he can fill it out some more, it might be worth keeping. The article as it is now basically just says 'She's dead. Oh, and here's a couple of things she did'. As it is now, I agree: it's deletion-worthy. HalfShadow 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Right now the only sources appear to be memorial (obit?) pages on semi-reliable (news blog) media. This is the strongest English result I could find, a review of the show, and it only lists her among the cast. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care much about some random actress but I'm really don't like your attitudes... This is patent ignorance + cultural bias...
Just because something can't be found in English media, it doesn't mean it's not notable... There are far less notable English speaking entertainers listed here in Wikipedia... how exactly do you define the notability of entertainers? Appearance on American TV? if that's your standard then i suggest you delete every article on European/Asian/South American/Caribean/African entertainers. After all, not many of them are very well known in English speaking Medias...
Which one of you regularly watch Japanese, Chinese, or Korean, TV in the 1990's may I ask? Did any one of you maybe went over to the korean protal and ask for some one's opinions over there?
I wouldn't really object to deleting this article on grounds of notability but if that's the case i expect to see you delete pretty much every article in categories like algerian muscians and finnish actors and the like (i'm not entirely kidding, click it through, pretty much all of the articles about finnish actors are about the same quality as this one.)
Philosophy.dude 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
p.s. personally i think having your death, as a foreigner, announced in major news sites like Xinhua News Agency qualifies as notable... [1]
- Comment. I'm about to speedy delete this as a copyvio of http://popseoul.com/2007/09/08/rest-in-peace-lee-ae-jung/. -- But|seriously|folks 03:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Delia ketchum
Contested prod. I proded orginally because an article on this character, under the title Delia Ketchum, was redirected to Ash Ketchum. If the correctly spelled article is not worthy of an article on it's own, why should an incorrectly spelled article be wiki worthy for a stand alone article? Postcard Cathy 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you've got a point there. I feel that this article may also fail Wikipedia:Notability. Mrs. Ketchum may be the protagonist's mother, but we don't see her very often in the series except for one banned episode, a few episodes after the Indigo League, and when Ash returns home only to set off for a new region. In addition, most other minor characters (such as Drew) do not have their own articles as well. I would agree to deletion on this one, under the primary reason of lack of notability. There really, really isn't much to say about her.
The second thing is that all sources are self-published, so they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. I used to think they were fine as sources until this guy told me here. Sorry, but I'll have to vote for a deletion on this one. -- Altiris Exeunt 07:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I generally like to add more than 'delete per above' or 'delete per nom', but there's not much more to add. Kudos to the creator/s for the work put in, tho - please keep editing. Colonel Tom 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted - lacks context/no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Big 7 league
prod contested with no improvement to the article. Article still doesn't make any attempt to establish notability Postcard Cathy 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete No notability whatsoever. Definitely meets CSD A7. - Rjd0060 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete agree with Rjd0060. No assertion of notability, and WP:SD#A7 is applicable. Carlosguitar 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simon M. Kirby
Not particularly notable, see also the Talk Page GhePeU 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep.Definitely seems like a notable expert on the field, see this. • Lawrence Cohen 05:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Again, nothing unusual: [2], [3], [4] GhePeU 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Taking it further... wouldn't this indicate he is notable? • Lawrence Cohen 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Upgrading to Strong Keep per extra sourcing by Bláthnaid. • Lawrence Cohen 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Taking it further... wouldn't this indicate he is notable? • Lawrence Cohen 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is an article about him in New Scientist [5]. The two books of his that have been published by Oxford University Press have received multiple reviews eg [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. This review of one of his books says that it "received international acclaim as an innovative contribution to the discussion on the relationship between formal and functional linguistic approaches". Bláthnaid 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As the original author, I know my points will be given less weight, but they are thus: he has an important position, many non-trivial publications, in a not-very large field, and does interesting work. He's also received real coverage, as Blathnaid points - IIRC, I myself first heard of him (and wrote down his name to look up later, which eventually led to writing an article) when he was mentioned in a book review in the NY Times as a linguist doing important/interesting work related to evolution. --Gwern (contribs) 01:49 12 September 2007 (GMT)
- Weak keep. There is absolutely nothing in the article as it stands to indicate to the general reader that Kirby is a notable scholar. Thanks to Blàthnaid for finding the New Scientist article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected. the wub "?!" 22:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Greene county daily world
Recreation of Greene County Daily World, a page with constant vandalism. Jonathan Fall down go boom. Light fireworks go BANG!® 21:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect This didn't need to be listed for AfD; just redirect Greene county daily world to Greene County Daily World. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect Agreed with GlassCobra, this doesn't need an AfD, and as for the constant vandalism alluded, it's more a content dispute with the parent article it seems than vandalism. Nate 22:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —David Eppstein 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AYME
Advertisement in violation of WP:SPAM. Non-notable charity group. Almost all of the text is a WP:COPYVIO from [12] and [13], and that is after another Wikipedia editor removed two whole copyvio sections from another source. Nothing salvageable here. OfficeGirl 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - If it's a copyvio then surely it's a speedy for it? At the very least the violating text should be removed and replaced with a {{copyvio}} tag.--WebHamster 22:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Since there doesn't appear to be any non-copyvio material present Bfigura (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, but I'm going to tag it for {{sources}}...If there's no sources added in a couple of weeks or months, I'd strongly recommend another AfD for failing WP:V. — Scientizzle 22:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dov Gazit
Cannot find any reason why this guy is notable. None of the English google hits for Dov Gazit are for him, and from what I can make out neither are most of the Hebrew ones. The most that can be said about him is that he was a chief-commander of the IAF (Israeli Air Force) Technical School in Haifa, but I do not believe that is a notable position. Number 57 21:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- Number 57 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there is another Dov Gazit listed in Google - head of the 2ooo Gazit report, former Gaza administrator and Brigadier General. But this Dov Gazit precedes Google and is an important contributor to the Israeli Airfoce. He was a member of Haganah and commander of Air Force technical school, and most interestingly, this Dov Gazit brought the first lion back to Jerusalem Biblical Zoo, where it lived for some 30 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.94.160 (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article brings in info from Slavic-language sources (not cited), so it's not surprising to find few or no Google hits in English. His notability seems well established in the article. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The article cites an individual linked to Zionism in Russia, service in the Haganah, and a human interest portion (the story of the lion acquired for the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo. -- Steven alias StevenBirnam 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC) — StevenBirnam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dead Rain
Contested prod. Unable to find reliable sources outside of IMBD. Does not appear to come close to meeting notability guideline for films. JamesTeterenko 20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Of all the actors, only one has an article, and appears to be non-notable (some of the cast links point to incorrect articles on people of the same name). In addition, this movie appears to be its director's only work, and the only movie ever produced by its production company, so says IMDB. Someguy1221 20:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Someguy1221. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiln
Contested PROD. Disambig page where the items disambiged are two red links. Protester created blue links, but neither is to the actual item, but rather to related items, so it's still a disambig to two red links. TexasAndroid 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. It's a disambiguation page, not an article. It is now a disambig with two bluelinks, which is the important bit; the retention of the two redlinks does not somehow negate the bluelinks. Please see WP:MOSDAB for guidelines for the use of redlinks in disambiguation pages, and if needed raise a "Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion" discussion instead. -- JHunterJ 23:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Appropriate disambig page. The red links may refer to notable subjects, but if not that doesn't prevent them from being listed in a disambig page. — xDanielx T/C 06:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, if this AfD is going forward, per my response to the proposal. -- JHunterJ 10:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My point is that, given noone has created articles on the two actual subjects, they do not appear thus to be notable enough for the project. At the least, not notable enough for anyone to have bothered. Links to related articles do not show notability of the linked items. A link to the play's author is not a link to the play. A link to a list of places is not a link to the place. The two items that are actually being disambiguated are not linked to anything. They are still red links, and thus IMHO do not qualify to be on a disambiguation page. The disambiguation page refers to red links being allowed if the item is likely to have an article written. But these two have been here for almost two years, with noone bothering to create articles. Disambiguation pages are for navigation between similarly named articles on the project. But this disambig does not serve that purpose. There is nothing at the two destinations, and so nothing to disambiguate between.
- On an interesting related note, I just a couple of days ago had someone post on my talk page saying that I should actually be speedying these things, as by {{db-disambig}} they qualify for G6 speedy deletion. I have no intention of actually doing that, as I much prefer to give the chance for my judgement on these kind of things to be questioned, which PROD and AFD allow for, even if that means that some results go against my own judgement. But still. The fact that this is enough for Speedy deletion is an interesting twist. There's still the issue that JHunterJ considers linking to related articles to avoid the issue of it not pointing to anything, and my contention that related articles do not qualify. But still...
- Finally, on the AFD vs MFD issue, I just looked at WP:MFD, and it talks specifically about being for things outside the main namespace. Disambigs are in the main namespace, so I would think that AFD is still the proper place for this discussion. - TexasAndroid 15:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the interesting related note -- that someone was me (the same JHunterJ), but not for "these" things. The speedy is for dabs with 1 or 0 blue links, so it doesn't apply here.
- On the AFD vs MFD issue, a look at WP:AFD indicates that is specifically for articles, and disambigs aren't articles, so I don't think this is any better than WP:MFD. Perhaps there is no place for such discussions because they shouldn't really be needed -- either there are insufficient things to be dabbed and {{db-disambig}} should be used, or there are sufficient things to be dabbed and no discussion should be needed.
- On this one in particular, there are two articles that mention Tiln, despite the Tilns themselves not being notable or interesting enough to merit an editor creating the articles. Such things can and often are still included in disambiguation pages because that helps the reader reach the page he or she was looking for -- again, please read WP:MOSDAB for its discussion of redlinks on dabs. In this case, a reader searching for Tiln likely wants either the play or the place, hence the disambiguation page will get them there quickly. There are no notability requirements for disambiguation pages themselves. -- JHunterJ 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and if it would help, I'll be happy to create redirects from the entries to the blue links, so that there will be blue links for the primary entries in the dab. But it shouldn't be necessary to avoid this discussion. -- JHunterJ 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep—Notability requirements for an entry on a dab page have a much lower standard than requirements for an entire article about a subject. Maybe there is a misunderstanding that comes from this instruction in WP:MOSDAB: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject." If, as the nomimnator contends, it is very unlikely that the two redlinked articles will ever have articles, then the instruction tells us not to link the article titles; it does not ask us to remove the entries from the dab page altogether. In other words, I see two valid entries on this dab page—if the consensus is that these articles will not be created then we would de-link the two red titles, but still keep the entries on the dab page to help with navigation to related articles that mention Tiln. --Paul Erik 22:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As pointed out above, the presence of blue-links on the page to topics directly & closely related to the red-links is an acceptable format for disambiguation pages. The argument that "if it's a red link, it is not a notable topic" is a statement of misunderstanding about the present content of Wikipedia vs. the scope of notable topics in the real world - there is a great deal not yet included here that is nonetheless notable. I would suggest, though, that a best practice would be to create an entry on one of the requested articles pages to accompany red-links on dab pages; that would be a concrete demonstration by the dab page author(s) that the topics are indeed notable enough for inclusion in their opinion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In my opinion, disambiguation pages are not in scope for WP:PROD in general as they are not articles per se. Nor, in my opinion, should they appear at WP:AFD; rather, I would prefer to see them at WP:MFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per JHunterJ. older ≠ wiser 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Just because the links are red at the moment does not mean the disambiguation page is useless. As long as articles can be written on those two topics, the dab page does what it is supposed to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Summer Sunshine (film)
A contested prod. I did a Google search and was not able to find any reliable sources that this is notable. JamesTeterenko 20:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, I can just cut and paste this from another afd. None of the actors have articles (not that that doesn't mean they aren't notable, it's merely suggestive). In addition, this movie appears to be its director's only work, and the only movie ever produced by its production company, so says IMDB. Someguy1221 21:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. The fact that none of the actors have articles, as noted by {{user-c|Someguy1221)) is definitely a red flag; I'm also unable to locate any sources apart from IMDB. --Darkwind (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Non-notable, and the plot is a copyrightvio of the IMDB. --Hirohisat Kiwi 21:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Black Eyes and Neckties
Questionable whether this meets WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. The "sources" are a classified ads site, and an independent punk music sales site. --Darkwind (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as obscure garage band. Non-notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spunk rock
Fails WP:RS. Punkmorten 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT—I can't find any mention of this "genre" anywhere outside of material sourced from this very article. --Darkwind (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I can see several references to the phrase - mostly as a song title - but a genre as referenced in the article? Darkwind and I concur. Colonel Tom 13:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons stated. All the bands using the term seem to have the same three or four people in them. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note I voted, but this is obvious. Neil ム 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Warner (Canadian politician)
Non-notable Conservative candidate. Never held public office. Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should add that it also fails WP:AUTO since the subject himself has heavily edited the article. --GreenJoe 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nice personal election brochure this is... Is the book he co-authored notable? If so, keep. If not, delete unless he wins the by-election. Resolute 21:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As loath as I am to delete such a well formated and non-POV article, he isn't notable till he wins an election or something unusual happens in the election. Mbisanz 02:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I tend to think that all major party nominees reach a minimum (and, in this case, a bare minimum) level of worthiness of inclusion. But if consensus leans the other direction, I see nothing else about the individual that makes an article on him worth keeping unless he gets elected to Parliament. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. We keep the information on all major party candidates in Canadian elections. If he is not notable enough for a full article, he should be merged into the general one on Conservative candidates. In this case he has done enough things outside of politics that an independent article is justified. - SimonP 12:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Discussion on the merits of a Wikipedia article on Mark Warner can be found at the very recent deletion review discussion, which can be found here. There seems to be ample evidence that he is notable enough for an article with or without his candidacy; he holds an award from McGill University, co-author of a published book, is a frequent public speaker, and has featured in Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones. I can only assume the nominator didn't read beyond the first paragraph. Neil ム 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is standard practice that Canadian political candidates, nominated for an upcoming, current or previous election are notable enough to keep. However, it is not to be an explicit campaign piece, so asking for volunteers etc. should be removed from any political article if such subject matter appears within it. I've also noticed that this article was nominated for deletion by GreenJoe, who consistently brings up AfD challenges that fail, due to their misundertanding of Wikipedia guidlines. Since almost of all of that user's AfD fail, and are in fact unwarranted, this call for deletion should be dismissed outright. --Abebenjoe 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Assume good faith, please. The DRV did suggest this go to AfD, and not everything I nominate at AfD fails. It's about geting a consensus too. I don't appreciate your venomous words. GreenJoe 16:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm on the fence about this one, but I do feel that I need to stand up for GreenJoe, with whom I've clashed a couple of times before (he's a deletionist, I'm an inclusionist, basically). He does propose a fair number of unsuccessful AfDs, but it's not because he doesn't understand WP:N; he just takes a very narrow, but not unreasonable, reading of them. And even if he was completely out to lunch about it (which he isn't), that wouldn't constitute justification for outright dismissal of this AfD, as User:Abebenjoe suggests. Sarcasticidealist 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - I trimmed a bit of pavonage, but the article is still pretty superficial. What visible positions has he taken, other than being a Tory of Afro-Caribbean heritage? What controversies has he been associated with? GreenJoe, I'd advise improving the article and making it meet NPOV standards, rather than trying for a deletion. (And co-authorship of an obscure textbook is a pretty weak claim to notability, by the way.) --Orange Mike 16:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Co-authoring a book usually means that the guy suggested that the author use Verdana as the font in the book or something equally similar, in my experience. But regardless, he has other 'claims to fame' as well as the Candidacy. It kind of reminds me of the Bill Shorten article... who is a union activist in Australia, and a candidate for the 2007 election here. I'm not sure whether or not this guy is on a similar level, because I'm overall unfamiliar with Canadian politics. Pursey Talk | Contribs 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- As nicely formatted an election brochure the article is, he's not notable. He's not going to win. It's a Liberal riding. Very liberal. Major party candidate doesn't make him notable. The book isn't notable, and he's only the co-author. The by-election hasn't even been called yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --GreenJoe 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- This article is not about an anticipated event, so Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is not relevant here.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- As nicely formatted an election brochure the article is, he's not notable. He's not going to win. It's a Liberal riding. Very liberal. Major party candidate doesn't make him notable. The book isn't notable, and he's only the co-author. The by-election hasn't even been called yet. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. --GreenJoe 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per SimonP.--JForget 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Since nobody else seems to have bothered to look the book up in quotes on Google: its a law-school text and has been used as a text in courses on International Law (which by the way, is significant enough alone to keep the article per WP:BIO...). While there are not a lot of recent courses solely based on the text (since the last edition with Warner was in 1997), this version is apparently still used as a reference in classes across Canada (eg: University of Victoria LAW332, USask's 2006 offering of "International Trade Law", etc), and is cited as a resource by numerous law libraries at US Universities (a testament to notability .. eg: NYU lists the text among only two in its "NAFTA research guide" http://www.law.nyu.edu/library/naftaguide.html) and Canadian universities (eg: McGill, Western, etc). The book is hardly passable as it is also co-authored by a former Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm still recent enough of a student to have access to journal sites, and this text is cited in published papers, although I unfortunately can't direct link anything from JSTOR or anything like that because nobody will have access.
- ¶ To respond to above commentators confused over the multiple authors, this is obvious because the text is designed to be comprehensive and there are different legal specializations covered by each author. It does seem to be a "best seller" as both the publisher and Warner's bio from Fasken Martineau DuMoulin state (who referred to it as "the leading Canadian trade law treatise" in pieces dating closer to the publication date). I can even find it referenced in decisions logged on justice.gc.ca (that's Canada Justice Dept for the non-Canadian wikipedians... eg URL: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/drs/cac/ch2-a.html).
- ¶ In terms of Notability, there are multiple published articles referencing Warner, including mentions in local news in the riding about him. Per Neil's comment, he's been tapped to comment/write on issues in The Financial Times, the Toronto Star, Agence France Press, and the Wall Street Journal/ Dow Jones... He's also well published in other sources: "Antitrust, World Competition, International Trade Law and Regulation, the American Journal of International Law, Law & Policy in International Business, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, the Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, the Brooklyn Journal of International Law, the Canadian Business Law Journal and The Legal Times".
- ¶ Despite some effort to wipe the reference from his previous article, Warner is also listed in ExpertGuides: http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=2&egaBOBID=&CountryID=103&ExpertOfficeID=21340&GuideID=158&fcIndex=1575&fIndex=687 (ExpertGuides for finding internationally recognized lawyers is published by the Legal Media Group of EuroMoney -- a published monthly financial magazine). Check the methodology page at http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=11&stub=2. The listing research process starts with 3500 questionnaries: "The questionnaire asks leading figures to nominate those lawyers they consider being among the most capable for that work. The results are analyzed and screened for firm, network and alliance bias" and continues with interviews with "acknowledged leading experts" in interviews held in major legal centres: "Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Washington DC, London, Paris, Brussels, Frankfurt, Zurich, Hong Kong, Singapore, Melbourne and Sydney." And it goes on (read it yourself). It says mentions can be "enhanced" by adding a bio (presumably for $$), which given the logo, is something Warner's firm apparently opted to do. However, there is no way to "buy" your way onto this list and given the publisher it is very credible. Take a moment consider what it would take for experts from across the world in your chosen field to name you and your work as worthy of their nod. I for one would be wondering how the heck they knew who I was. This recognition makes sense: Warner chaired a committee with the American Bar Association, Worked with the ICC (Co-chaired Competition Commission Working Party on E-Commerce and Competition Policy), testified for the US DOJ, and FTC, and served as counsel for the OECD for several years.
- ¶ Even without a nomination for Toronto Centre, he's worthy of Wikipedia. That nomination only adds to the fact he should have an article here, and is far from the sole reason for it. The only candidate in this riding not worthy of an article is Tindal. The Greens here don't have to be upset that the best candidate their EDA could muster is little more than a deadbeat kid (b. 1981) with Internet access... I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I really do think all of Rae (Liberal) / Khaki (NDP) / Warner (Conservative) are worthy of bio's here on Wikipedia, and especially believe this to be the case so after reading WP:BIO. Greenjoe: I'm sure everyone familiar with Toronto Centre agrees that Warner has one hell of a battle to fight if he wants to make a dent in the riding, but that has nothing to do with his worthiness of an article, and nothing to do with Wikipedia being a crystal ball. Looking at your history, you seem to be a fan of what I think is excessive tagging. If you put crap on Khaki's article, I'll be there to defend that too. Thank goodness Rae's is locked. --Grandmasterkush 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or merge I'm of the view that major party candidates should have articles at least until the election they are running in is concluded, particularly if at least one candidate in the contest already has an article. If we need to revisit the question about his notability after the election, we can, but I see no harm in having an article until then as long as it's well sourced, balanced and NPOV. Reginald Perrin 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I tend to think that the only reliable basis for notability is ultimately objective: authorship of a major text, published recognition in a field, holding academic positions, and appearing in multiple articles in world-wide media have to be enough. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to build an encyclopedia of relevant knowledge. Full disclosure: I live in the riding and am politically active (as a Conservative --Markdsgraham 19:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)). Nonetheless, I think deleting this article and others like it will lead to a flood of deletions with the ultimate effect that users cannot find articles on subjects they are interested in. I think it's clear that any concerns about NPOV should be addressed by editing the article not deleting it.--Markdsgraham 12:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of general notability as well as the election. I have argued that major party candidates for national positions should be considered notable as a matter of course--this has not really been the consensus previously, but consensus can change and perhaps it has--certainly I've seen more people supporting that view lately. (I think they're important enough and always get press.) I doubt the academic career would be notable by itself: Assistant Professors generally turn out not to be notable as academics alone--co-authorship of one book may not be enough. DGG (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] HQ Entertainment
Non-notable record label by a musician who does not even have a Wikipedia page. Fails WP:CORP because of no reliable, third party sources. I'm also adding Taking Over the Game Vol. 1 for the same reason. Spellcast 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability I can see - Delete both. MarkBul 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not even qualifiable for notability till they release the mix tape. Mbisanz 02:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All as notability unproven. --Gavin Collins 08:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comic Land
Contested prod, creator removed prod notice and added protected tag to article (nonadmin). Original prod reason: Bionicle fanfic creation and fan "movie" of sprite animation. No apparent or asserted significance or importance of comic/movie. Fails WP:MADEUP,WP:FICTION,WP:MOVIE . Recommend Delete. Michael Devore 19:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Can't imagine this will be controversial.--P4k 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and I note (with amusement) the signature in the article text. --Darkwind (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:MADEUP. Smashville 22:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Well no duh. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. I do not see any way to save this article. Carlosguitar 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Interested editors may wish to make more effort to source this article to prevent its relisting as it is lacking in sources - but there is no consensus to delete at this time. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Motorola W220
The article for this non-notable product has been Marked for expand since July with no action and remains a few-sentence stub. The only references are a blog-style review and the manufacturer's website, re-enforcing the lack of material available to write a well-referenced article because of the product's irrelevance. -- Mikeblas 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Mikeblas 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in the absence of substantial third-party sources. Jakew 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikipedia is lacking in coverige of Motorola products. Now we have far more articles on Pokemon characters than Motorola products. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for diferent markets should be merged. We do not have any artilces on Motorola phones that share this hardware platform. If there are they should be merged with this article. -- Petri Krohn 04:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the lack of sources in the article doesn't mean there aren't any. Given a bit of time I could find some--Phoenix 15 19:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalofg of celphones. The article lacks any coverage in independent and reliable sources, so fails [[WP:N]. Edison 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless the phone set some kind of sales record or tech breakthrough. Mbisanz 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and source better, or merge all the stubs into one article. You don't have to be the biggest or the best to be notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There is no indication that this phone is notable.--JForget 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable phone is non-notable. 198.103.221.52 22:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into one article about Motorola's entire cellphone line. -Toptomcat 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Motorola E770
Because this phone is non-notable, the only cited references are the manufacturer's page and a review which doesn't meet the WP:N guideline for "substantial". The article, without specific footnotes, is just a list of "features" and "complaints" without footnotes from the two provided references (inadequate as they may be). An interesting article on the product would reference books written about the product team and their process, articles about the design of the product in its domain (eg, RF engineering, firmware development, etc), and so on. Were this product notable, such references would be readily available; they're not. Mikeblas 03:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The review mentioned is devoted to covering this particular brand, so I cannot see how that is not "substantial", and if you make a Google check you'll find plenty more. A good article would have more sources yes, but even in the current condition, the article succeeds at providing the important information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the nominator that product reviews are not substantial coverage for the purpose of determining notability. Jakew 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Also the article is written in most part like a guide--JForget 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Badly written is no reason for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problem says not to base an argument on the quality of the current article. I know I'm being a bit of a wikilawyer but it could be improved--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Wikipedia is lacking in coverige of Motorola products. Now we have far more articles on Pokemon characters than Motorola products. I think every mobile phone hardware platform is notable. Minor versions for different markets should be merged. This phone seems to be Motorola's flagship model, and does not share hardware with any other phone with a article. -- Petri Krohn 04:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Pokemon is not relevant to this AfD. This article isn't about a hardware platform; it's about a single consumer product. -- Mikeblas 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- keep article is badly written yet more sources could be found--Phoenix 15 19:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of celphones. The article lacks any coverage in independent and reliable sources, so fails [[WP:N]. Edison 21:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see how a list of product specs is a Wikipedia page - Wikipedia is not a directory. Reviews don't show that the item is notable - they just show that they exist. Notability would require articles discussing the buzz about the product in reliable sources - think iPod. Now THAT is a notable product. this is a catalog. MarkBul 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Dozens of new cell phone models are made every year, some like Chocolate, RAZR, and iPhone are notable. Others, like this aren't.Mbisanz 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and source better, or merge all the stubs into one article. You don't have to be the biggest or the best to be notable. But if there is only a few sentences, merge them into an article on Motorola cellphones. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into one article about Motorola's entire cellphone line. -Toptomcat 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, article lacks sufficient independent sourcing. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Amy McCarthy
Delete for lack of independent notability. Wryspy 01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think that being a Playboy centerfold is noteworthy of notability, but Playboy Cyber Girl is not Corpx 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Vague AFD statement. Are you saying that apart from her website notability is not established. I will add a few things in the next hour or so to establish independent notability. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment She google tests at over 2.5 million hits and is from a notable (by wikipedia standards with 2 sisters and a cousin having articles) family (which only helps ever so slightly).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- No. If you enter the name with "Amy McCarthy" in quotation marks so that the works have to be side-by-side, it's 80,500. And then start looking at the actual entries. A huge number of them are not about her. As for your previous remark, having a notable family does not denote individual notability. Wryspy 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I understand notable family does not denote individual notability, but on the margin it helps ever so slightly as I stated above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Google "amy mccarthy" "playboy" "-com" (to remove commercial sites) and you get 61 hits - many of which are not about her. MarkBul 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Sources are the magazine she appeared in and web sites of questionable reliability and independence. Edison 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I thought magazine appearances support notability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Between her two magazine appearances and her acting credits, I feel she's notable. Dismas|(talk) 04:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing encyclopediac at all about this. NBeale 10:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - an appearance in Playboy (as opposed to being a centrefold) is not notable. Her acting credits appear to be non-notable small parts. And being related to someone notable doesn't cause it to transfer. -- Whpq 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect - The Playboy article was apparently a roundup of Cybergirls rather than a dedicated article, which is just enough to knock me off the fence on this one. However, I think she has gotten enough attention that there should be a redirect to her sister, and I favor retaining the history in case her career progresses. --Groggy Dice T | C 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Faran College Jhang
procedural nomination Deleted via WP:PROD in June 2007, recreated in much improved form in August 2007, nominated for speedy deletion the same day, then taken to PROD on procedural grounds. The article does not assert notability - and does not even note in which country the school resides. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. None of the information is verifiable Corpx 04:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. cab 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Existence and location verifiable by reference to newspapers and government websites [14]. Don't see any evidence of notability but I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable about the local situation to comment. cab 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Existence and location hardly verifiable without knowing what country to look in. As the article presently stands, it quite nearly qualifies as CSD#A1 because I certainly can't figure out in which context I'd find this information relevant. --Darkwind (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete (unless improved) - The subject college may well be notable but this article is so lacking in context and references (sources, wikilinks, text claims of notability or even statements of what country it is in) there's no easy way to tell. If we had too many like this Wikipedia project would be swamped in unusable information. Wikidemo 03:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as violating WP:HOLE. Even after reading the article, I have no idea what it is, where it is, or why it is notable. "College"? Bearian 00:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Bearian. Twenty Years 07:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mina no Pro Wrestling
Prod removed with the reasoning being that it was prodded before and de-prodded by the author. The article seems to cover a one-time show with no evidence of notability and no outside references. Nikki311 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, I am the original prodder, and I can still see no assertion of notability. J Milburn 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Non-notable -FlubecaTalk 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Davnel03 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 11:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 12:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per not-really notable/major wresting event.--JForget 23:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 14:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)===List of Webkinz games===
Per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sister article was deleted yesterday See here -FlubecaTalk 19:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:LISTV. This list doesn't belong in Webkinz, it most certainly doesn't deserve its own article. Also, there are no real criteria for membership in the list. --Darkwind (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It seems like a good article. It lists all of the games that are or have been on Webkinz, and it is accurate. Mollymoon 22:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as indiscriminate info. Someone certainly went to some trouble to classify each game, but this is not the place for it. The criteria for classifying games seem subjective, in any case. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Symptom imperative
Another bit of spam of Dr. Sarno's uncollaborated claims (see Tension myositis syndrome) - Pacula 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd want to see citations from peer-reviewed journals and NOT self-serving publications before accepting this -- could be dangerous to the credulous. Accounting4Taste 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete one doctor against the world is not notable. Just another doctor with a miracle cure. MarkBul 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No results found in a library database search of medical journals. --Darkwind (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:OR. Don't see any reliable sources here Bfigura (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's well cited and verifiable, a term used in psychosomatic medicine. Ralphyde 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's not entirely true. The only reference provided is from John_E._Sarno. As such it has COI/POV issues, given that he's the 'inventor' (discoverer?) of the condition/disorder. We need independent sources to establish notability. --Bfigura (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete this and the other one. I suggest a small mention in Sarno's own article of these theories. There's some original research and random claims in this article too I think.Merkinsmum 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Seems POV-ish and lacking verifiable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbisanz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An unnotable neologism from unnotable Sarno. Sorry, but this spamming has got to stop. He may even be right, but Wikipedia only features stuff that is notable, IOW history, not newly emerging stuff that hasn't gotten sufficient notice yet. When that happens in V & RS of an independent nature (not directly connected to Sarno), then it might be eligible for inclusion here. Wikipedia must not be used to establish notability. It's got to happen "out there." THEN we'll notice it and include it. Patience is the word. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or at least Redirect to an article on conditions arising in the psyche which then manifest in the physiological. No view one way or the other with regards to the Doctor concerned. Marcus22 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable per WP:N. No third party references WP:RS, appears to be phraseology of fringe science WP:FRINGE. If anything, this can be merged with Sarno (if an article on him exists). Shot info 04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The list of wiki violations is exhaustive, and so far we have not heard anything useful in its defence. This whole Dr. Sarno extravarganca in Wikipedia is nonviable.JayEffage 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian Bernard Singer
This article has been tagged since November 2006 with no improvements and none apparently forthcoming. Third party sources are few: the only one that really goes beyond a press release is for a small local weekly. The other external links are promotional or paid listings. Freshacconci 18:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note - As mentioned by User:Aspro at Talk:Christian Bernard Singer, User:Epiphyte, the original editor of this article, created several articles that all link back to his online gallery. It may be worthwhile looking into Frans Koppelaar, Suzana Stojanović, Benjamin Vasserman, Bill Jackson (photographer) and Dominic Rouse for notability issues as WP:COI is clearly a factor in all. Freshacconci 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Freshacconci 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability I can find. MarkBul 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of third party reliable sources indicates lack of notability. --Stormbay 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per above. The article to date: has been a wast of editors time. --Aspro 08:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Freshacconci, Modernist 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Deb 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Sigma 7 06:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] House of Guitars
Not notable musical instrument store does not meet WP:CORP Google hits misleading in that there are other stores with the same name. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nom Withdrawn speedy keep per this Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The link does not give the full article. But following the link on the Google news archives] does. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nom Withdrawn speedy keep per this Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Very notable music store: was featured in the Wall Street Journal. Will find citation and post it here. J. Van Meter 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Post citations to the article. Without good references, it's a Delete. MarkBul 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This is a notable establishment that goes beyond just a regional landmark. It's know by professional musicians all around.-68.198.99.174 01:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Here's the Wall Street Journal citation Nelson, Emily (1997, June 12). Meet the master of the House of Guitars. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. B, 1:3. Retrieved September 9, 2007, from Wall Street Journal database. (Document ID: 45184952).
-
- Annual sales ~ $7 million in 1997. Customers include Metallica and Ozzy Osbourne
- - and The Ramones: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAw0XrmBsdw&mode=related&search=
-
- (Just because you can't find something via Google doesn't mean it should be deleted here.) J. Van Meter 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Youtube is not a verifiable source and the other link requires a log on that I don't have. If we can verify, from a verifiable source, the notable bands as customers, withdraw nom and switch to speedy keep. However, there is nothing in the article about this. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Got it Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Just because you can't find something via Google doesn't mean it should be deleted here.) J. Van Meter 01:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If she won the award she would meet WP:PORNBIO. Since the claim that she fails the guideline is the only argument for deletion, tentative evidence that she won the award is good enough for a tentative keep. The claim should probably be included in the article even if the sourcing is dubious. Eluchil404 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kimberly Carson
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 18:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep per Gene93k and the 1985 XRCO Award. Epbr123 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of notability in article. Tabercil 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N due to lack of independent and reliable sources. Edison 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Vote recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 15:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- possible keep - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. This actress was very popular for about 3 years approaching being notable, from my knowledge of the subject. Blushing 19:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete nothing notable in this article NBeale 10:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. She won an XRCO Award in 1985 for "Best Supporting Actress" in Girls on Fire according to the RAME.NET list of awards.[15] The XRCO page only goes back to 1993. I am still looking for a more reliable source. Also, her IMDB filmography says she was at the '85 awards. • Gene93k 06:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good research. I can't find any reliable sources yet either but I expect it's true given the high number of unreliable sources. Epbr123 08:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Brent DiCrescenzo
This guy is one of the funniest motherfuckers around and one of my favorite music writers, but does he really pass WP:BIO? Look at the criteria for Creative professionals under Criteria for notability of people, and you'd be hard-pressed to explain how Mr. DiCresnenzo meets a single one... unless you count his wacky novelty reviews as his advancing a "significant new concept, theory or technique." If there are sources indicating that this cat is notable, please state them here. I'd love to keep the article, but I don't think it's appropriate. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; I tried and failed to find independent verification on his notability. --Darkwind (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete even tho' I enjoyed reading the linked To the 5 Boroughs review. I bet even DiCrescenzo would vote against keeping this. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn with only "keep" votes placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dave Lloyd (cyclist)
Obviously copied from other website; it's an article about a non-notable cyclist. Unless someone can clean this up substantially and have it meet the requirements for notability, I say this page should be deleted. IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn Nomination I made a mistake in nominating this, so unless anyone else wants this deleted, it will be kept. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep He's quite clearly notable, having competed at the top level of British cycling, and won some major races. However, the text is largely copied from his website at [16] with minor adjustments, so is a copyvio as well as unacceptably POV. I'll have a go at rewriting it, probably as a stub unless I can find some decent sources about a 70s cyclist on Google. Iain99 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've rewritten it as a stub, as there aren't many sources online, which is probably to be expected for a 1970s figure. I'll leave it to people more knowledgeable about cycling to find printed sources, and decide which of his particular achievements should be included. Iain99 19:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Competing at the Olympics would seem indicate clear notabilityNigel Ish 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Does everyone who has competed at the Olympics have an article? (I'm seriously just wondering) IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:BIO - for athletes, the criteria are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", and/or "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". He seems to meet both criteria, and yes, the Olympics would seem to count as the highest level of amateur sports. Iain99 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, I see I was clearly mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Perhaps a cleanup tag would just suffice? Is there a way to withdraw my nomination? IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can just strike through your original nomination by bracketing it with <s> and </s>, and add something like "Nomination withdrawn" below. If nobody else argues for deletion, an admin will close it as a speedy keep. No worries, and thanks for realising your mistake. Best, Iain99 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for your understanding. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you can just strike through your original nomination by bracketing it with <s> and </s>, and add something like "Nomination withdrawn" below. If nobody else argues for deletion, an admin will close it as a speedy keep. No worries, and thanks for realising your mistake. Best, Iain99 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, I see I was clearly mistaken in nominating this for deletion. Perhaps a cleanup tag would just suffice? Is there a way to withdraw my nomination? IT'S DA. . .Ανέκδοτο 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment See WP:BIO - for athletes, the criteria are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis", and/or "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports". He seems to meet both criteria, and yes, the Olympics would seem to count as the highest level of amateur sports. Iain99 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 strong support for keeping the article, Horrorshowj puts forth the most compelling argument.--Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Harry Duiven Jr.
Not notable boxer, Record seems not notable.I see nothing among the 73 Google hitsthat meets WP:BIO. According to this version, he is most notable for winning by default when his opponent did not show. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (categories) •
-
KeepWeak Keep Granted, it's not the best looking article out there, but as to notability of athletes, it says "played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport." I know for baseball & soccer, one pro game establishes notability. In a sport like boxing, wouldn't one pro fight meet WP:BIO?--Cube lurker 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I don't think so. I think a more substantial record would be needed. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You may be right. It just seems like a consistant appliction of that policy. Looking at the article again, i'm thinking of switching to weak keep and waiting to see if anyone else has strong thoughts as to how athletic notability is applied to fighters.--Cube lurker 02:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - professional athlete, meets WP:BIO. — xDanielx T/C 06:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The key reason is "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport", which is an issue with mma, boxing and the pseudosport of prowrestling. In order have a pro fight, you need the equipment, a promoter to pay you, and that's it. Anyone can call themselves a promoter, and boxing equipment is cheap. Therefore, getting 1 pro fight is easy. Do the participants in Bumfights qualify as professional athletes? He's only fought 4 rounders, which is more or less entry level, and doesn't have a great record at that. Hasn't been ranked, no major opponents/tv time. Doesn't meet any of the general notability options, so I don't see how this guy can be considered notable based on what's available. Horrorshowj 10:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This isn't even an article. It's an incoherent list of unsourced data. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Otto Cardew
Non notable martial artist/Martial Arts instructor. Operates a local dojo and holds a 5th Dan/Shidoshi with the Bujinkan. Closest thing to an assertion of notability in the article is that he was the first Bujinkan instructor in Michigan, which isn't much of a notability claim. Wingsandsword 18:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If it's not non-notable, then it's spamming for students for his classes. Accounting4Taste 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable (and badly written). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Howie Klein
Ambiguous Notability Mmckee 17:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Howie Klein should not be deleted. He has some Notablility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.238.17 (talk) 06:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno, the guy seems pretty notable to me. The article has some decent references as well. I'd say keep it. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep President of Warner Bros. records for more than 10 years seems sufficient evidence of notability to me. Accounting4Taste 19:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, he's notable as per Accounting4Taste (t c). --Darkwind (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above...he was the President of WB Records for 12 years, which means there is probably an infinite amount of news coverage about the guy. Smashville 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, THE Howie Klein?! In good faith, though, this is an article that makes a notable person seem insignificant. --Dhartung | Talk 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but rewrite. He's notable for being President of the first American new wave/punk record label 415 Records, AND for being President of Reprise. The article just needs to be better written, researched, and sourced. DanielLevitin 06:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep President of Warner Brothers Records for 12 years seems pretty notable, the article is sourced, I don't see a problem. --Wingsandsword 17:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gittings Studios
This appears to be a non-notable company. There are currently four very old citations for this article, and I haven't been able to locate them online. The external links are mostly self-referential, and do little to further establish notability. Recommend delete Dchall1 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This one looks alright by me; the citations are old, but I'm sure they exist. The second link in the external section could certainly be used. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I just removed the biographical material about the son - it doesn't belong. MarkBul 20:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and wikify. Someone did their homework. Notable company. Needs copy editing. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Antifiction
Once speedy deleted as advertising but re-posted and contested speedy deletion. In any case, despite the author's claim on the talk page, this very much looks like advertising or soapboxing. No third-party sources attesting to the importance of the movement. The term "antifiction" has been used many times in different contexts and is certainly not, as the article seems to suggest, some 21st Century creation. Pascal.Tesson 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete This smells awfully like spam to me. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt Definately spam. It's been deleted before, so salt. Yamakiri 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and SALT per Yamakiri, GlassCobra. Spam, spam, spam. Accounting4Taste 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete and salt, obviously spam, fails WP:RS as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete, certainly looks like spam. The fact the author recently blanked the page and replaced it with a link suggests that may be the case. Would delete it myself, but I am yet to read up on the new salting technique. J Milburn 19:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nuke per above. -FlubecaTalk 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Revised Content has been revised —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.58.49 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete And salt. Even after revisions still looks spammy, and isn't verifiable with reliable sources Bfigura (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Revised Content has been revised further —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.142.147 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I originally saved content before I was finished creating it, resulting in the first deletion. I was unaware that doing so would result in such a negative reaction. Now, the information is updated. I invite all critics to revise as you see fit. If you continue to find this entry problematic, let me know if you have any specific opinions on how to resolve these issues.
Taht 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's fine to describe a hip-hop act as a "movement" on the website and in press kits, but not in Wikipedia. Antifiction will merit a Wikipedia article only after someone who's not in the group (or paid by the group, or making money off the group) is moved to write about it. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- "movement" Revised (please verify that members or money are involved in authorship.....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.209.74.208 (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mac OS 11
Pure speculation. Apple has not announce a Mac OS 11, and it is unknown whether there will be an OS 11. Mac OS X could continue as Mac OS X 11.0 or as Mac OS X 10.10 ANDROS1337 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Assumed+not much known+no sources=Delete. T Rex | talk 16:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as speculation, with no prejudice against recreation if the operating system is announced.--Danaman5 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL Computerjoe's talk 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as pure speculation. Article should be recreated if/when Apple officially comments on it. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not much to add apart from what was stated above. I hope the creator of the article was contacted of the AfD so they don't make the same mistake. IT'S DA...Ανέκδοτο 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete-Wikipedia is not a rumor mill, or an assumption mill, we might as well create articles for Windows 8, etc. Page is also poorly edited, etc. Josephberte-Talk 04:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the site that the "article" uses as a "source" is obviously an April fool's joke. Josephberte-Talk 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as it could be notable but it's certainly not almost certain to take place. Alyoshka 04:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Premature article. • Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per blatant crystal-balling.--JForget 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 08:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Mushroom (Talk) 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel Curran
Contested prod. No opinion. T Rex | talk 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Would reconsider if additional sources were added. --ElKevbo 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable person. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no independent attribution of notability. Wikipedia is not a businesspeople's directory. --Dhartung | Talk 17:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Article creator has just been indef blocked for edit warring/ harassment. Seems to be a UF uber-booster. I will try to prod some of the others, AFD may not be necessary in this case. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Dhartung, no independent attribution of notability. Accounting4Taste 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Significant lack of notability (or merge with related article).--JForget 23:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 think the "delete" arguments here are stronger than the "keep" arguments and there are WP:BLP concerns as well. The only ref that might establish notability was the "National Young Writers Festival" bio, which is now a 404 error (the page does not exist in their database). And, I cannot tell if he is being sarcastic or serious, he may not want an entry here - [17]. Mr.Z-man 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patrick_Alexander_(cartoonist)
Bio of non-notable subject. Fails all measures of notbaility for people 218.143.102.89 11:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As above: fails all measures of notability for people and this is unlikely to ever change. 218.143.102.89 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fix miscreated 2nd nomination to use a 2nd nomination page. KTC 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep I'm not entirely convinced that the subject of the article is non-notable. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I see nothing here that shows he is a notable cartoonist. i said 19:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This cartoonist has been nationally published in Australia since 2001. He has a definite cult following here. I own print copies of much of his work. He is absolutely notable. 203.221.239.88 02:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sadly, being nationally published in no gauge of notability. The Wikipedia notability for people guidelines are set out (as linked to above) and the subject fails them all. 219.112.189.202 04:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here are a few of the measures of notability Patrick Alexander meets:
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition - has been advertised as a guest at National Australian festivals and conventions, including Supanova and the National Young Writers Festival.
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. - Ledger Awards nomination.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - In Australia, Patrick Alexander's children's comics have a significant and provable cult following. DollyD 10:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was hoping to avoid this, but it appears you're neglecting to follow the link to the guidlines for notability of people. Here they are:
- Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. Fail
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Fail
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Fail
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. Fail (Not sure the Ledger Awards qualify as siginifant crtical acclaim, and he didn't actually win anything.)
With respect, your gauge of notability is yours alone. The Wikipedia guidlines are there to measure what has a place in this encycopedia, and this article doesn't. 218.143.102.89 11:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I believe that Patrick Alexander does meet a number of the general guidelines for notability. As for the specific Creative professionals guidelines, he is regarded as an important figure and widely cited by not only by his peers (the general cartooning community in Australia as a perusal of industry discussion board Pulp Faction will show - http://forums.pulpfaction.net/), but also a definite cult fanbase. DollyD 11:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The general guidelines keywords are: "Significant coverage" "Reliable" "Sources" and "Independent of the subject." I'd argue that what you cite falls far short of "significant coverage." Nor do the sources you mention meet the "reliability" guidlines. An internet cartoon message board cannot be regarded as, or relied upon as a secondary published source of information on the subject. Reliable secondary sources are expected to be multiple in number. There are currently none. All works cited are those in which the subject was published. Multuple secondary sources independent of the subject are lacking, and I believe will be unable to find. With regard the cult fanbase point, this is a faily meaningless piece of point-of-view original research, and irrelevant when trying to establish notability with regards the general, and person-specific, guidlines. This will be my last word on the matter as it's a faily obvious case of a lack of notability, and explaining precisely why is rather tiresome. 218.143.102.89 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I feel some measures of notability are met 203.220.106.203 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It would be helpful to give details (baring in mind the Wikipedia guidlines - not just gut feeling), as so far there is no evidence to support your claim. 218.143.102.89 13:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is not notable. Published =/= notable. Wikipedia is not a reference guide for all the published authors in the world. The Ledger Awards are not recognized as significant by anyone except the people who invented them. (In fact, if the Ledger Awards have a Wikipedia article it should probably be deleted too.) 220.148.66.146 06:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Retain In Australia, Alexander is still best known for Pink Chickens. He is a professional and well-known comics artist (there aren't that many in Australia), best known for work in kids' magazines. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Again this amounts to no more than "He is notable becuase he did this." If you plan to vote keep please try to address the points raised above. 219.112.189.202 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Because he did this." seems a reasonable argument, given that the field is Australian comics. Alexander is a creative professional, is an important figure in Australian comics (influencing some who have appeared in the scene since) and he displays a distinctive style blending Western and manga cartoon influences. The question probably comes down to whether Australian comics are significant. 17 September 2007
- That wouldn't be the question at all. While he may or may not be a talented artist, I think as an obvious fan, you're overplaying all aspects of the subject's notability. I'm not familiar with his work, but I've seen in passing over the years many styles blending western and manga. That could never be considered a unique selling point. Perhaps twenty years ago, but now? 218.143.102.89 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant is that Alexander is a significant figure in Australian comics, but maybe the field itself isn't of international importance. FWIW, I'm not a particular fan of Alexander, but I am very familiar with the whole comics scene in Australia (where I live), and it would diminish Wikipedia's content in this area to remove this entry. I take your point about the blending of Western and manga styles, but Alexander was among the first in Australia and he did it in a cartoony style, unique then and still unusual. He remains well known among kids of a certain age. 18 September
- That wouldn't be the question at all. While he may or may not be a talented artist, I think as an obvious fan, you're overplaying all aspects of the subject's notability. I'm not familiar with his work, but I've seen in passing over the years many styles blending western and manga. That could never be considered a unique selling point. Perhaps twenty years ago, but now? 218.143.102.89 09:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Because he did this." seems a reasonable argument, given that the field is Australian comics. Alexander is a creative professional, is an important figure in Australian comics (influencing some who have appeared in the scene since) and he displays a distinctive style blending Western and manga cartoon influences. The question probably comes down to whether Australian comics are significant. 17 September 2007
- Comment Again this amounts to no more than "He is notable becuase he did this." If you plan to vote keep please try to address the points raised above. 219.112.189.202 06:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Retain In Australia, Alexander is still best known for Pink Chickens. He is a professional and well-known comics artist (there aren't that many in Australia), best known for work in kids' magazines. 17 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.187 (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Two Secondary sources citing Patrick Alexander
- OzComics Magazine no. 1 - Information about Patrick Alexander in the major Australian comics magazine, edited by Darren Close and Mark Selan.
- TiN Radio - Patrick Alexander was interviewed in September 2005. I'll add information and references to the article soon. DollyD 12:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure how these two examples are meant to meet any of the measures of notability detailed above. If these are the best examples available (and I suspect they may be) then it appears a lost cause. The rules are there precisely to prevent people who have seen minor publication and / or radio appearences from swelling the encyclopedia. If that was enough to deserve an article I'm sure several thousands of people who have seen similar 'coverage' would be knocking up their own articles. 218.143.102.89 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but a default keep. Since this is a long discussion, and a complicated close, I'll explain myself a little.
To begin with, the closure does not endorse, support, or in any way reward Ralphyde's aggregious abuse of Wikipedia guidelines in this dicussion. If anything, it had a negative effect on this article's chances. Prior to the extensive re-write done to the article, this would have been a delete. However, the admirable efforts of users to source and re-write this into an encyclopedic format is laudable.
Nonetheless, I cannot determine a clear opinion either way, do to the confusion of the discussion caused by the sock-puppetry, and the re-write/"reboot" which occured perhaps 3/4's of the way through. As such, I'll close this without a firm decision from the community and without prejudice to a later renomination. Hopefully then we will get a firm decision, and without the sock-puppetry. --Haemo 00:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tension myositis syndrome
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
Highly biased article that is little more than advertising for the books it uses for "reference" - Pacula 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Relisted? Was there, like, a debate or something? Mandsford 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A diagnosis that only one doctor in the world claims exists? Look like spam for his books. MarkBul 16:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It is just advertising the views of a single doctor.--Danaman5 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's a WP:SYNTH violation at best. --Evb-wiki 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This article has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004. While controversial, tension myositis syndrome is a legitimate diagnosis that has been very successfully used, and thousands of patients with chronic pain have been successfully treated with this psychosomatic disorder since 1982 at the Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine at the NYU Medical Center. To post it for deletion simply reflects profound ignorance or bias toward psychosomatic medicine. Dr. Sarno has been a physician since 1950, at the Rusk Institute since 1965, where he has treated tens of thousands of patients, healing them of various mindbody disorders such as chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and various other TMS equivalents. He is also Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine at New York University Medical School, and has written four books on his successful methods. His success rate is said to be over 90%, and his methods have been adopted by numerous other physicians, many of whom were actually cured of chronic back pain by him, and six of whom have written chapters in his latest book (2006), The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders. He is in high demand, with a worldwide reputation for curing chronic pain, and is still seeing patients at the age of 84 at the Rusk Institute. And there are other books on TMS written by other physicians but not listed here. For those of you who know nothing about Dr. Sarno or his methods, I suggest you watch the 20/20 segment [18], or listen to this recent WOR interview (April 2007) [19]. To infer that he is trying to promote his books is simply absurd. Dr. Sarno is a dedicated and successful pioneer in the field of psychosomatic medicine in a medical establishment that has been taken over by drugs and surgery, dealing with symptoms instead of causes of disorders. Ralphyde 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Given the amount of times "Dr. Sarno claims" shows up in the narrative I'm surmising that he hasn't actually proven anything yet so basically it boils down to original research really. --WebHamster 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, idiosyncratic diagnosis of what the medical community most often terms RSI. --Dhartung | Talk 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE, almost textbook - "If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." Pubmed turns up nothing and the mainstream journals provided as citations say nothing about TMS directly (it's a WP:SYNTH). The sole scientific publication is a conference abstract calling for more study. WLU 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)- Delete per WLU... examining the citations, they don't seem to demonstrate anything about the claims, just that the answers aren't known. Accounting4Taste 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I myself have benefited from this book in that I have cured my chronic pain. Although Dr Sarno wrote the book referred to, he is not the only doctor to use this method. Some more are listed here: http://www.tmshelp.com/links.htm HilaryN123 20:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Edit: From my own knowledge of the subject this seems to be well-written article. I do think that the links to buy the books make it look like publicity for Sarno and I think perhaps they should be removed as they distract from the subject matter of the article. Deleting the article entirely would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. HilaryN123 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- — HilaryN123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC)..
- Comment: Why is it that in AFDs on these particular types of topics lots of WP:SPA accounts voting keep start to congregate? Is it osmosis? Divine intervention or merely a magnetic navigational sort of thing? --WebHamster 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Never underestimate the power of self-preservation. --Dhartung | Talk 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Please do not generalize, especially not with a sarcastic tone. I !voted "keep", below, and I have never even seen this article before today. I read it and did some research and found it to easily pass WP:N and WP:V, though it needs work to conform to WP:NPOV (details in my comment !vote below). Also, the account labeled above as a SPA (by an editor who did not sign the template) has never edited the article at all and may simply be a new user, which is what the user states in their comment on the talk page of this AfD. --Parsifal Hello 08:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete of course the sock or meat puppets find their way to these articles by psychic means lol. These theories should merely have a brief mention in the bloke's own articles. The person further above said this is a recognised diagnosis, then goes on o say it's only diagnosed/treated at this one clinic.Merkinsmum 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Nobody said that it is only diagnosed/treated at only this one clinic. Dr. Sarno has been working at Rusk Institute since 1965 (that's 42 years), and during that time has cured tens of thousands of patients of chronic pain while developing his method there. It is also diagnosed and treated at various other places in the country and the world by doctors who have adopted his methods, such as the list referred to above, as well as Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, Dr. Ira Rashbaum, Dr. James Rochelle, Dr, Douglas Hoffman, and many more. Do any of the skeptics on this topic have the slightest knowledge of TMS or Dr. Sarno? If any of your relatives or friends have chronic back or other pain, they would be lucky to find him, and have a chance at true healing. Do a little research. Watch the 20/20 segment mentioned above. It proves that the treatment works beyond a doubt. Or would you rather have surgery and "failed back syndrome?" Ralphyde 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough yet. Ralphyde, you've got to stop the spamming. Be patient. Wikipedia isn't going away, and if this concept becomes recognized by the mainstream, you'll be able to produce plenty of peer-reviewed research to establish notability. Until then just wait. BTW, using Andrew Weil as some kind of evidence isn't the smartest move. He recommends all kinds of nonsense. -- Fyslee/talk 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Vote changed to KEEP below. -- Fyslee/talk 00:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Fyslee. This just has too many WP:REDFLAGs for me. Bfigura (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- *Keep This article describes a non-mainstream but extremely effective medical approach to chronic pain. It is used effectively as a diagnosis by physicians other than Dr. Sarno, including Dr. David Schechter, Dr. Mark Sopher, and Dr. Scott Brady. Furthermore, in some portions of the mental health community, it is commonly accepted that emotional difficulties can cause physical illness. This point of view is espoused by, among others, Dr. Charles Whitfield and John Bradshaw. This is essentially the same theory, but looked at from the opposite perspective, so Dr. Sarno and other TMS physicians are hardly the only ones who hold this viewpoint. The article effectively describes the theory and surrounding information and provides a number of relevant references on chronic pain; it is hardly uncited or of poor quality. There are further websites discussing and detailing success that individuals have had with the treatment which do not currently appear in the article, such as http://conquerrsi.com/ and http://podolsky.everybody.org/rsi/. In short, there is much more information about this topic than many voters for deletion seem to be aware of. This article is particularly worthwhile for those who may hear about this diagnosis from a friend, TV show, or article and want to find out more about it. For that reason I strongly believe it should be kept as a resource. Armchairlinguist 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to NPOV. Per WP:HEY - This article has problems as an article, but the condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. There are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention the diagnosis listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss that term, using their "search inside the book" system. So, the article needs a major rewrite and needs the sources to be added, but there is no reason to delete an article just because it needs improvement. Instead, it should be improved. --Parsifal Hello 05:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[striking out and replacing my comment as follows, because the article has been re-written since I wrote my original comment. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]
- Keep. [Someone started a new section below, "Start over", so I've entered my !vote there too, not intended as a duplicate, just for clarity, and with a reference to this entry to make sure it does not seem like a duplicate. The rest of my comment here still stands. --Parsifal Hello 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)] The condition is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable, and the article is now WP:NPOV. It has 28 footnotes so far, and only a few of them are related to the physician who coined the term. The condition has been discussed in a full 20 minute segment on ABC's 20/20, and in numerous other places. I do not believe it is a diagnosis accepted in general by mainstream medicine, but it is a notable topic and appropriate for an article. I've struck out my initial !vote just above which was to "keep and rewrite", because after I wrote that and my other comments below, I decided to dive in and improve the article; I rewrote much of it and added many references.
- I had not seen this page and found it through this AfD. I had not previously known about the condition or edited any related articles. It's clear from the discussion on this page there are a lot of SPA's, and some COI agendas, so the challenge is to see through that stuff to whether the topic itself is notable, and it turns out that it is. There were significant NPOV problems with the page, but those have now been fixed, and the questionable external links that some considered to be spam have been removed. Beyond the references that I (and another editor or two) added to the article in the last few days, there are at least 42 non-self-published books that mention this topic listed on Google Books, and Google Scholar lists 15 citations, including for example Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 1989. Amazon lists 46 books that discuss the term, using their "search inside the book" system.
- I don't know why this topic has generated so much SPA/COI activity on both sides of the debate, but if that stuff is filtered out, the content of the article is worthy of a "keep" according to the core Wikipedia policies. --Parsifal Hello 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether it's real or not, it's fairly widely reported on, so we ought to have an article on it. • Lawrence Cohen 05:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. What is the problem with adding a section stating the concerns above? Deleting the article does no good since there are a few NYTimes bestseller books that reference it. There's no reason to pretend this doesn't exist, since many people do not take stock in this theory and many others will research it on Wikipedia for more information. 66.92.43.103 07:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- — 66.92.43.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's more understood than RSI, which is very vague to say the least. After considerable time spent studying RSI and it's physical maladies, most people become aware of Sarnos theory, and have a need to research more into it. Therefore it would be hindrance for many to remove this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.244.9 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- — 90.207.244.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Anyone who has spent any time researching chronic pain knows that there is no good physical explanation for most of it. TMS is just one part of mindbody science, and we are only starting to understand psychosomatic medicine. I was very fortunate to find Sarno's books in a local library, which helped me avoid spinal surgery, and im an ardent skeptic who sees much "alternative medicine" as worthless or at best placebo. Read the books and do some simple research before deciding the world really is flat. 204.227.127.171 08:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WLU's rationale above. The case for keeping the article is not compelling, and I'm not seeing the kind of mainstream medical community recognition of the theory as I'd like to in order to convince myself that it is a notable practice. What I am seeing a lot of are testimonials from supposed beneficiaries of the treatment and readers of said books. This I find suspicious. --Agamemnon2 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep "Mainstream" is a somewhat dubious criterion for judging what belongs here. TMS is a valid diagnosis, with decades of clinical studies behind it. Back surgery, as a "treatment" for back pain, has a dismal record of success, but lots of "mainstream" use. Eliminating valid diagnoses and treatments from Wiki because they are not accepted by "mainstream" doctors does this information site a serious disservice. Ignorance is pretty "mainstream" too, and I'm seeing a lot of it here. Oh, and the "cure" rate for RSI and fibromyalgia by "mainstream" doctors is pretty pathetic too.Mamaboulet 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- — Mamaboulet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Parsifal comments above, the diagnosis described in the article is clearly WP:N and WP:V. The article needs to be re-written to better maintain neutrality, and it requires improvement. But the diagnosis and treatment of TMS is described by licensed and practicing medical doctors, the list of which is objective and verifiable: Note qualification of those authoring the numerous texts available on the topic. And the scientific evidence to support the diagnosis or efficacy of treatment should not be the only guide to a decision to delete or include... the availability of evidence should only guide the appropriate presentation of the information. There is "no" scientific evidence to support articles like "astrology" (which is a beautiful and informative article by the way). Indeed there is scientific evidence to refute its claims. Yet the subject is clearly notable and verifiable, and as such adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. So as an alternative medical treatment modality, mainstream or not, clinical evidence supported or not, the Tension Myositis Syndrome also adds to the richness of information available on Wikipedia. The article should only be presented within the proper context of the available objective clinical evidence. As the evidence increases or decreased over time, the article should be updated to reflect this. But the article should not be deleted. Ej2pi 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- — Ej2pi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those of you coming from ralphyde's call-to-arms post on the TMSHelp forum, please realize again that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion looking for a consensus on how to best handle this issue based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That said, we -do- welcome your input in this matter - and do not forget that you can also help by fixing the article so that it better meets Wikipedia's guidelines (most importantly in this case WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability). - Pacula 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment As an "ignorant", "know-nothing", perhaps I should point out that I've been an FMS sufferer since the age of 12 (35 years ago) and have been reading up on the subject (and associated subjects) for more than 20 years, I still vote delete. So "HilaryN" ("it's a pharmaceutical conspiracy"), "armchairlinguist" ("too many ignorant people here"), "mamaboulet" ("terribly impatient with smug ignorant people") now that we know your true feelings for the thoughts and editors can we expect further helpful insights and continued help with the growth of Wikipedia? PS, I wish I did work for the pharmaceutical industry, my living conditions would be considerably higher. --WebHamster 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'd like to note that you weren't able to tag me with the "has made few or no other edits outside this topic", so it's a bit inappropriate to ask whether I, at least, am going to contribute outside of this situation. (And if I were the other people, I'd say why bother after seeing your behavior, frankly. Luckily, I've seen some of the better sides of WP too.) I've been an active, if low-volume, contributor to Wikipedia for some time. Many people on Wikipedia are ignorant about this topic -- as I am on many other topics that exist on WP, which is why I only edit in areas I know something about ... Armchairlinguist 22:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If my behaviour is of concern to you then may I respectfully suggest that you make an official complaint? If you are going to accuse me of bad behaviour then do it officially, do not suggest it in a debate without backing it up by evidence. If you aren't sure where to complain please let me know and I'll help you out by pointing you in the right direction. meanwhile do not make baseless accusation. On another note, I'm glad to see that you didn't deny your insulting comments, thank you for your honesty. --WebHamster 22:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I would like to report that Pacula has threatened to block me from updating because I have been attempting to repair the damage he has done on this and related articles. First he posted this Article for Deletion, then, on the same day he went to all the many references and links to tension myositis syndrome in Wikipedia, and deleted them. This created a huge mess of broken links and deleted citations, which I would characterize as nothing short of vandalism and censorship. When I tried to repair the damage he had done in the various articles, he accused me of "spamming" and advertising, and followed me around reverting my repairs and calling me a "very determined spammer." I have protested his behaviour on his talk page, on Wikipedia alerts, as well as with other editors. I don't know his motivation for attempting to censor the tension myositis syndrome article, but I urge him to desist. As this is a well established topic, and needs to be on Wikipedia for those who suffer from chronic pain and need to find this very successful treatment. Ralphyde 19:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Advice: This is not the place for this sort or report/complaint please go to WP:ANB if you have any complaints about another editor's activities. --WebHamster 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Advice: - Whilst you travel across WP this is a recommended stop too... WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing--WebHamster 20:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep The prevalence of the condition and the failure of modern medicine to deal with it makes me inclined to agree with Lawrence Cohen that we ought to have an article covering the possibility that the condition is psychosomatic. (Both in cause and cure). What I would prefer to see, however, is a more general and less doctor-specific article.
Marcus22 19:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I do think that Sarno himself is notable; though there is insufficient acutal information to keep the page (in my mind), the little information that's worth keeping could be merged to that article, though I forsee that page itself turning into a similarly tenuously-sourced WP:OR/WP:SYNTH/WP:FRINGE piece. Having two extremely stubby pages seems superfluous though. Information moved over would have to be carefully screened to keep only the 'good' stuff. WLU 21:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Part of the problem is that so many people are saying that there are lots of doctors who treat this condition, know about this condition etc etc so how come it's only Samo's name that shows up in every paragraph? How come it seems to be Samo's pet theory? The sycophants can't have it both ways. It's either Samo's claim or it's a widely accepted medical diagnosis. If it's the former then it needs to be deleted. If it's the latter then Samo's involvement needs to be either totally removed from the equation or severely pared down. So which is it folks? Either way Samo's involvement needs to be minimised. --WebHamster 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- In my own case the condition to which I refer to as being prevalent is undiagnosed backache/pain, not TMS. Backache/pain, with no apparent physical cause, is a widespread and widely recognised condition. I would imagine most doctors are aware of it. Not just Samo. Marcus22 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section Break
- Comment. Let's focus. I've already !voted to keep the article, but not because it's a valid medical diagnosis. This is not a debate about how to improve the article or what the article should be about, this is just a debate to find consensus about if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether it's a "real" medical condition or not doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is: Is it WP:Notable? Is the notability WP:Verifiable? The answer to both those questions is yes. There are 45 or so books and a bunch of scholar papers that mention the condition (even if some of those mention it just to debunk it, they are still discussing the topic). To be clear, I am not at all saying this is a good article. It's not - it needs to be made NPOV, and that means it needs to include negative as well as positive information, depending on what can be found when the sources are researched. But it doesn't make sense to delete an article about a topic mentioned in 45 books (that are not self-published) - that's notable and verifiable enough. When the AfD is closed, or sooner if someone has the time, the article should be gutted of all none-WP:RS info and re-written with in-line citations and footnotes. --Parsifal Hello 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
Comment - I've seen only one mainstream science mention of TMS, that's one of Sarno's students who 'published' it, and it's a conference abstract, not a journal article. The journal references currently used in the article are all completely bogus from what I can see, they represent the WP:SYNTH portion of the page. Valid info should be moved to Sarno's page. WLU 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Here's a brand new study on tension myositis syndrome, just published today: [20] Ralphyde 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- So put it in the article, not here --WebHamster 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- "it may be possible", yes very conclusive. --WebHamster 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In addition, that's not a journal publication, that's basically a press release. WLU 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- "it may be possible", yes very conclusive. --WebHamster 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the following criteria:
-
- WP:Avoid_neologisms - the phrase is a unrecognized term whose only advocate is a solitary source. The de facto definition of a neologism.
- WP:CITE - The requirements of scientific citation, especially in medical terminology, requires third party verification. Though many sources are cited, the only ones that directly address the main article topic refer back to a solitary author's self-published source.
- WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is not the forum for self-publishing fringe theories.
- Though not a direct criterion, the amount of sock-puppetry doesn't speak kindly towards the article.
Djma12 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep ,Whether you buy into this doctors diagnosis or not, it is a valid diagnosis. I've been able to get rid of 3+ years of pain through this diagnosis and treatment program. Not everyone believes back surgery is proven in all cases to eliminate pain, but I'm sure there are all sorts of references to surgical procedures in here. Bottom line is that for anyone doing research, there should be at least a reference. My take is that the people opting for this article to be deleted have a monetary stake in nobody finding out about this treatment program that would crush many a back surgeons or chiropractors business. Let's not be so hasty to eliminate a good working cure to a pain that plagues 80% of people at one time or another. Massage doesn't work for all, accupuncture doesn't work for all, chiropractic care doesn't work for all...and nor does the diagnosis of tension mysositis syndrome. But that doesn't mean we should strike all references of any less than 100% cure. It's a valid diagnosis - keep the reference. Let the reader (not some people on a mission to protect their wallets) decide if the term applies to them. 68.32.12.92 00:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC) — 68.32.12.92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
-
- Given that you've now set the precedent for not assuming good faith by accusing us of having ulterior motives. How are we to take what you say in good faith. How do we know you don't have an ulterior motive e.g. book sales, after all you are anonymous!. Please read WP:GOODFAITH before you make any more public accusations like that. --WebHamster 00:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what you personally believe about the therapy, please remember WP:No Original Research. What is important is not whether you believe the therapy works or not, but whether it is verifiable. (Hence the maxim, wiki does not seek "truth" but verifiability.) Djma12 (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't the wiki and fringe science all just get along? Make friends and go read some Voltron pages together, how about it? Then rewrite the page to be absolutely neutral and both parties let it stand. Some information, good or bad, is better than none. If no one talks about anything that's fringe how will they know to verify it or to avoid it? PenguinEatingAnApple 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- — PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I disagree, no information is far better than bad information.--WebHamster 10:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral factual information is best. Even if it implies someone is a quack. Or not. PenguinEatingAnApple 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Now that I agree with :) --WebHamster 13:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral factual information is best. Even if it implies someone is a quack. Or not. PenguinEatingAnApple 13:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FRINGE. The article has many, many sources, but only 3 of them apparently deal with the "syndrome" itself, and two of them don't even use the same name for the syndrome. Disclosure: I came here because of the WQA opened on this matter. --User:Darkwind (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep and keep checking for NPOV. This is an interesting special case of fringe science, where the proponent is in fact highly qualified in the field and had an unimpeachable academic. Sarno is Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at NYU_School_of_Medicine, a world-famous medical center. and Director of the Outpatient Department at its Rusk Institute, one of the preeminent rehabilitation specialist institutes. There are no higher qualifications. And yet it does seem as if no other qualified specialist thinks his method is valid, or that the diagnosis is real. I think that his stature however makes it notable, and the article is necessary. A notable error or a notable quack theory, whatever you prefer, but notable. DGG (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
** Comment - WP:NOTINHERITED, Sarno may be notable, but I don't think his treatment necessarily is, if the only sources we have are his own books. The little information that will remain in TMS after removing all the OR and SYNTH can easily fit into Sarno's own rather stubby page. WLU 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Question./Comment. You wrote... the only sources we have are his own books... have you taken a look at the 42 books listed on Google Books that include references to that phrase? Only three of those books were written by Sarno himself. As I wrote above, the article needs improvement, but 39 books (not including the 3 books written by the person who defined the condition) is a significant set of resources that can be tapped, easily meeting WP:V. You might not agree with what the books state about it, and you may not respect some of the authors, but the books have been published and are valid secondary sources. --Parsifal Hello 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It isn't necessarily relevant that it's mentioned in the books, it's how it's mentioned, what is mentioned, why it's mentioned and how much is written about it in them. Don't forget the words "substantial" and "non-trivial" will you because they are relevant? --WebHamster 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
Echoing WebHamster (though in a more conciliatory way). I looked into only one book from Google Books, and the coverage appeared to be trivial. Parsifal, did any of the books have anything substantial to say? I can only think they will not, as not a single peer-reviewed journal article has cropped up. Actual researcher/scholars wouldn't include a serious discussion of TMS in a book if they did not have some sort of peer-reviewed research. Though I can't speak for the other 38 books listed, I was hoping someone else would do the legwork for me :) WLU 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)- First, just so you both know where I'm coming from, this particular article is not a big issue to me. The Wikipedia process is of interest though, and I see nothing in the policies that requires the use of peer-reviewed journals to keep an article. Sure, peer-reviewed is better, but when those aren't available, other sources are OK. Are the references trivial? I don't know, that would depend on how you define trivial. This book: The Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative, and Western Medicine By W. John Diamond, 2001, CRC Press, ISBN 0849313996 has 356 pages, devotes around 3/4 of a page to this topic, and lists it in the index both as an abbreviation and the full name. This book, The Undivided Self: Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress, By Theodore Dimon, Jr & Theodore Dimon, North Atlantic Books, 1999, ISBN 1556432941, gives it around a half page out of the book's 100 pages. In Awe and Trembling: Psychotherapy of Unusual States, By E. Mark Stern & Robert B. Marchesani, Haworth Press, 2000, ISBN 0789009730, they only give it one paragraph, but it's a paragraph where this condition is mentioned along with Sarno's work as a serious reference regarding how pain may be part of the cause of some panic attacks. Are those trivial references? There are a bunch more of them, and they are not self-published or spam-ish. It may turn out that with further research the article eventually says that the condition is only a theory that hasn't been proven (I'm not saying that, this is just a hypothetical). Even if that happens, it's still notable enough to be mentioned in 39 books and that's 39 books more than lots of topics in Wikipedia that have only magazines or blogs for references. Anyway, I've come to the end of my time budget for looking into this. I don't see any problem with a small article that has these kinds of references, Wikipedia is not paper, and some books made of paper had room for the topic. I think we have room for it here as well, though the article needs to be balanced and sourced. --Parsifal Hello 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Part of the problem here is that people are misinterpreting the guidelines. "Reliable" is relatively easy to interprete as is "substantial". I believe the problem lies with the "non-trivial". There seems to be a fair bit of quoting of reference of TMS which only involve a passing mention, a few words here or there. These, IMHO, aren't adequate references. The problem is that these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Drive-by mentions only demonstrate existence of the name, they don't demonstrate notability, importance or even if the actual malady exists. For an article on a scientific term, which in effect it is, it needs scientific back-up by independent sources with the the appropriate scientific credentials. A 2 page dissertion in Old Moore's Almanac is not a valid reference, whereas a paragraph or two in a rheumatologist's Phd thesis is. It's all about. It has to revolve objectivety rather than subjectivety.--WebHamster 10:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
Please be careful with statements like people are misinterpreting the guidelines. The word "misrepresenting" means "lying about in order to manipulate". I'm sure you did not intend to imply that I was purposefully doing that. I will assume good faith and that that you actually meant that you believe I "misunderstand", not that I "misrepresent".
-
- Are you getting confused. I didn't say "misrepresent", I said "misinterpret", where you got "misrepresent" from I have no idea. Freudian? --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- On the topic you mentioned, WP:N and WP:V are policies, not guidelines, and they are not "bright lines". And they have room for interpretation, depending on the situation. When you use a word like a "drive-by" mention in a book, that's your opinion. In some of those books they refer to Dr. Sarno's work as groundbreaking and valuable. There is nothing in the guideline that says that has to be in a PH.D. thesis, and there is nothing in those books that imply they are in any way not objective.
-
- A back-hoe is groundbreaking but otherwise non-notable --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It doesn't assert any notability, the guidelines and criteria for that sort of article are different to this article. A generic backhoe isn't notable but it is encyclopaedic :P (well caught though heheheh) --WebHamster 18:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- First, just so you both know where I'm coming from, this particular article is not a big issue to me. The Wikipedia process is of interest though, and I see nothing in the policies that requires the use of peer-reviewed journals to keep an article. Sure, peer-reviewed is better, but when those aren't available, other sources are OK. Are the references trivial? I don't know, that would depend on how you define trivial. This book: The Clinical Practice of Complementary, Alternative, and Western Medicine By W. John Diamond, 2001, CRC Press, ISBN 0849313996 has 356 pages, devotes around 3/4 of a page to this topic, and lists it in the index both as an abbreviation and the full name. This book, The Undivided Self: Alexander Technique and the Control of Stress, By Theodore Dimon, Jr & Theodore Dimon, North Atlantic Books, 1999, ISBN 1556432941, gives it around a half page out of the book's 100 pages. In Awe and Trembling: Psychotherapy of Unusual States, By E. Mark Stern & Robert B. Marchesani, Haworth Press, 2000, ISBN 0789009730, they only give it one paragraph, but it's a paragraph where this condition is mentioned along with Sarno's work as a serious reference regarding how pain may be part of the cause of some panic attacks. Are those trivial references? There are a bunch more of them, and they are not self-published or spam-ish. It may turn out that with further research the article eventually says that the condition is only a theory that hasn't been proven (I'm not saying that, this is just a hypothetical). Even if that happens, it's still notable enough to be mentioned in 39 books and that's 39 books more than lots of topics in Wikipedia that have only magazines or blogs for references. Anyway, I've come to the end of my time budget for looking into this. I don't see any problem with a small article that has these kinds of references, Wikipedia is not paper, and some books made of paper had room for the topic. I think we have room for it here as well, though the article needs to be balanced and sourced. --Parsifal Hello 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You're welcome to your opinion that this article is not notable, and you've made your opinion very well seen on this page by replying to so many comments, arguing over and over that the topic is not notable. What is your motivation in doing this? I don't get it. Anyway, whatever your motivation is, you stated in your note just above, the following: these mentions just establish that the name TMS is out there and I don't think that is in doubt. Well, you have just agreed with me that the term is notable and verifiable. That's what those policies mean, that the topic is "out there", ie, that there is usage and awareness of the topic in secondary sources that are not self-published. So, we know this topic is "out there" and has been written about. Now, let's improve the article to explain what those sources have said. If it turns out that there are sources debunking the idea of the condition, that's OK, let the article show that too. And, by the way, Dr. Sarno does have real qualifications, and his books while not independent, are not self-published; they are published by reputable publishing houses, with editorial staffs, and they are on the bookshelves at Borders and Barnes & Noble, and many other mainstream places. That, plus the 39 other books, is plenty of notability and verifiability to justify an article. It's not by any means justification for assuming that his theory is correct or accepted by the medical mainstream, that would require peer-review. But there is no doubt, as you agreed, that his theory is notable and verifiable, because it has been noted, and that can be verified by looking at 42 books. --Parsifal Hello 17:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- My motivation for doing it should be quite clear don't you think? I simply don't believe that it is notable, period. Why is it so hard for you to believe that? Another Freudian thing? I haven't agreed that "being out there" means that it is notable. You couldn't be more wrong. Notable means "worthy of note or notice; noteworthy" or "prominent, important, or distinguished". It does not mean "mentioned in passing", "mentioned as an aside" or "someone made a note of it" etc. I've seen graffiti that says "Bill Posters is innocent", does that now mean that Bill Posters is notable and should have an article? As for qualifications, Dr Crippen and Harold Shipman both had superb medical credentials.--WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Section break 2
-
-
-
- Comment I have read about ten books on TMS, including all four by Dr. Sarno. Dr. Marc E. Sopher's book is also very good. He has a way of stating issues clearly, for example; "TMS is a strategy of the brain's to keep unpleasant thoughts and emotions from rising from the unconscious into the conscious mind. The brain, through established physiologic pathways, creates pain as a distraction. By focusing our attention on physical symptoms, we keep these painful thoughts and emotions repressed. This is a very effective strategy as there is an absolute epidemic of mindbody disorders in our society."
-
-
-
-
-
- "Eliminating the pain is startlingly simple. We can banish the pain and thwart the brain's strategy by simply understanding and accepting that the pain has a psychological causation, that it is not physically based."
-
-
-
-
-
- "While much of the pain we experience has a psychological basis, it is essential to first be evaluated by your physician to determine that there is not a significant disease process. Unfortunately, if your physician does not consider TMS in the process of generating a differential diagnosis of your symptoms, it is possible that he or she will give an incorrect diagnosis. This occurs all too frequently as a physical cause is mistakenly offered. This results in a treatment plan that is often unsuccessful. As an example, many people with back pain are told that their symptoms are due to a herniated disc or disc degeneration, when in fact these findings are often incidental and normal. This helps to explain why physical therapy, medications, and surgery are often unsuccessful." pp 5-7 of his book, To Be or Not to Be... Pain Free.
-
-
-
-
-
- Here's another quotation from his book: "With the availability of CT and now MRI scanners, it is possible to obtain remarkable images of the body. That is the good news. The bad news is that many of these images will be reported as abnormal - one study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that greater than 60% of spine MRIs showed abnormalities, the same percentage in those without pain as with pain. Virtually every person over 20 who has a spine MRI will be told they have degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, degenerative changes, or some other abnormality. As these findings are present equally, no matter whether symptoms exist, it is Dr. Sarno's and my contention that these are incidental, rarely the cause for pain. Unfortunately, physicians are taught to find a physical cause for physical symptoms and thus tell their patients about their "back problem."
-
-
-
-
-
- "Being told that you have a "problem" or "condition" can aid the "nocebo response." This is the opposite of the placebo response. With a placebo, belief in a worthless remedy can provide relief, almost always temporary, due to the desire to be well and faith in the value of the remedy. With a nocebo, symptoms will persist or intensify as a result of being informed, incorrectly, that a significant defect or problem is to blame. This is a critical part of conditioning - coming to believe that certain actions, circumstances, or aspects of the environment are the cause of symptoms, when in fact the cause lies in the mind."
-
-
-
-
-
- In the 20/20 segment with John Stossel and Dr. Sarno [21] (14 minutes long), which I urge you to watch, as it proves that the TMS treatment works, the lawyer in the segment had seven herniated discs. He was very lucky to find Dr. Sarno before the surgeons found him, and he was cured of his chonic pain within a week, simply by being educated to the true cause of the back pain and changing his thoughts and attitudes toward his pain.
-
-
-
-
-
- A Study in the New England Journal of Medicine by M.C. Jensen and others, in 1994 entitled "Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Lumbar Spine in People without Back Pain," showed that there was almost no correlation between pain and what shows up on MRI images.
-
-
-
-
-
- John Stossel, probably as much of a skeptic as WLU or WebHamster, or even Fyslee, was cured of 20 years of chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno. He says on the 20/20 segment, "Frankly, I think this sounds highly unlikely, and I wouldn't even be telling you about this if 15 years ago, ABC correspondent Arnold Diaz hadn't talked me into going to Sarno. With one lecture, Sarno cured me of 20 years of back pain. It's so embarrassing, I can't believe I'm telling you about this..."
-
-
-
-
-
- Another lady in the segment had chronic back pain for years before it went to her ankles and she had to go to work in an electric wheelchair for three years before seeing Dr. Sarno. Her previous doctor reading her MRI gave her the nocebo that he was "pessimistic about any recovery," that "it looks like you've tried everything." She was cured in a week by Dr. Sarno, and was jogging without pain three months later. Stossel's brother, a doctor, even more of a skeptic than Fyslee, kept his back and neck pain, rather than see Sarno, because as Sarno expresses for him, the attitude of many doctors is, "If you can't prove it in the lab, it doesn't exist."
-
-
-
-
-
- Which brings up the difficulty of "proving" or even setting up a clinical study for a mindbody or psychosomatic treatment, where acceptance of the possibility of a psychological cause is a prerequisite to curing the disorder. As Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal, a certified Rheumatologist and internist and professor of Medicine at George Washington University Medical School, who was also cured of her chronic back pain by Dr. Sarno, says, "It is difficult because psychological treatments do not easily lend themselves to the ideal clinical trial methodology. How can we conduct studies to see if psychological approaches can cure this condition? Patients with TMS must be psychologically open to the diagnosis to improve. They must be ready to renounce the idea that their cure is to be found in structural or chemical means. Thus, it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to conduct a study in which patients with the same condition are randomly assigned to different treatments, one of which is the TMS treatment. Because getting better depends on accepting the TMS diagnosis, most patients assigned to TMS treatment would not improve because they would not be able to accept the diagnosis." This explains why there are not more studies out in Pubmed. Dr. Sarno has chosen to put his experience since 1965 at the Rusk Institute, 42 years of frontline clinical experience with tens of thousands of patients, into his books, so sufferers of back and other chronic pain can cure themselves by reading his books and following his treatment methods. In his latest two books he extends his treatments to other misdiagnosed mindbody disorders which are cropping up in epidemic numbers, such as fibromyalgia, and RSI, and others, for which the conventional medical establishment has no cures, and only treats the symptoms with drugs and surgery, and treats the body as a machine with no connection to the mind. This, however, is rapidly changing, and medical pioneers such as Dr. Sarno, are finally finding the cause of our disorders in our minds, and learning how to cure them.
-
-
-
-
-
- By taking careful histories of his patients, Dr. Sarno gradually realized there was a pattern or profile for people who get chronic back pain caused by repressed unpleasant emotions. These are conscientious, hard working, talented, perfectionistic people, who tend to put others ahead of themselves, and they may have had a difficult childhood, been a child of divorce, or suffered other abuse or neglect. And he came to believe that the majority of back pain falls into this category.
-
-
-
-
-
- Other books I have read are, Pain Free For Life, by Dr. Scott Brady (also cured by Dr. Sarno), who builds on Dr. Sarno's methods, but calls his diagnosis AOS (autonomic overload syndrome) instead of tension mysositis syndrome. And two other authors who were also cured of disabling Chronic pain by Dr. Sarno, Fred Amir, who wrote Rapid Recovery from Back and Neck Pain, A Nine step Recovery Plan, and Get Rid of the Pain in Your Butt Now!, by Monte Hueftle. And then there's a book I would recommend especially for WebHamster, Freedom from Fibromyalgia; The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own fibromyalgia using Dr. Sarno's methods and is now curing other sufferers. There are others, by Dr. Schecter, and other doctors who have been trained to diagnose and cure chonic pain using Dr. Sarno's pioneering mindbody treatment.
-
-
-
-
-
- I would further suggest that the skeptics here go to Amazon.com and read some of the many customer reviews of Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' books. They are overwhelmingly positive, and contain many success stories by people who cured themselves of years of suffering with chronic pain just by reading the books. Especially see, Healing Back Pain: The Mindbody Connection, which was a NYTimes best seller, and has over 300 customer reviews. If you still have doubts as to whether tension myositis syndrome is a significant breakthrough method for curing chronic pain, then I think you must be beyond hope, just like John Stossel's brother, the doctor. Please watch that 20/20 segment [22]to begin to understand what tension myositis syndrome is all about. People in chronic pain need to be able to find real answers on Wikipedia. If you know anyone in severe chronic pain, and there are millions, think about them actually finding a cure that works.
-
-
-
-
-
- Dr. Andrea Leonard-Segal concludes her article, "A Rheumatologist's Experience with Psychosomatic Disorders" in The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders, with the following quotation: "The beauty of the TMS diagnosis is that it is a hopeful one that can result in a true cure. The treatment leads to resumption of full physical activity, the emergence of a more emotionally healthy life, and an education in self-awareness. The patient who has recovered from TMS grows into a happier, more comfortable, more peaceful person who sees new paths toward greater personal fulfillment."
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for your careful consideration, Ralphyde 04:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's nice to see that you are so well read and purchase so many books. It's also refreshing to see someone who is passionate about their interests. The problem is that none of the above is relevant to an AFD. An AFD is to see if an article meets the requirements of Wikipedia guidelines, it isn't to establish whether a malady is real or not, fringe science or not, one doctor's word against another's or not. You would be best served posting the above on the the article's talk page where it is most appropriate, not here. --WebHamster 10:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WebHamster, I'm quite puzzled by your attitudes here. You have made 18 negative posts to this page so far. Yet you said above that you have been a victim of fibromyalgia since age 12. I'm wondering, Is it that you have just accepted the conventional doctors' nocebos that there is "no cure" and that you just have to learn to live with it? Have you given up hope that there is any hope for a cure for you? Do you find it insulting (as some people do) that the cause might be in your own mind? Have you ever read that book I recommended for you above, Freedom From Fibromyalgia? And here you are, trying to cut off the ability of other fibromyalgia patients from finding a cure for their suffering on Wikipedia. I don't get it? The only person I knew personally with fibromyalgia, who went through many painful years trying to find a cure for herself, finally did, but only, she said, after dealing with her "parental abuse," confirming a psychological or emotional cause. Yet many people find their pain preferable to facing their repressed emotions, which in some cases are horrendous, as with my friend, so they reject an emotional cause, and the possibility of a cure. I'm very curious and puzzled as to what makes skeptical people so skeptical?. Ralphyde 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't given up on being cured, I also don't have a problem with the possibility of it "being in my own head". My userpage should demonstrate how I dan't have problems admitting mental health issues. It should also explain why I am unable to get past the logic that it is currently fringe medicine that currently has no notability. Please note that I said "currently". FMS was discovered around 1860 but there are still conventional doctors denying it exists (personally I think it's because 1) they can't cure it 2) it will cost health care a fortune to treat it properly). Which ever way you look at it, it's only a tag, a description. Part of the reason I don't believe the term TMS is notable is that basically it's just another name for FMS. It's a term been coined by one person, or at least is being attempted to have one person's name attached to it. Let's face it doctors want to do two things in life. Cure people and discover an unbefore documented malady so their name goes down in the medical journals. I believe TMS is Samo's attempt to do just that, and I don't intend to help him. --WebHamster 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- WebHamster, I really appreciate your response. You say that TMS is just another name for FMS. Dr. Sarno would agree, except that he came up with the diagnosis of TMS with regard to his narrower focus on chronic back pain, which he has been curing with a 90% success rate since the early 1980's. It was only later that he began to see FMS as a more severe form of TMS, which he was also able to heal with his mindbody methods. He believes that FMS is in epidemic mode because it is being misdiagnosed as a physical disease.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Dr. Sarno says on p.62-63 of Healing Back Pain: The Mind-Body Connection (1991)[23] "Typical of these reports is one published in the Scandinavian Journal of Rheumatology in 1986 (Vol 15, p.165) by N.Lund, A. Bengtsson and P. Thorborg titled 'Muscle Tissue Oxygen Pressure in Primary Fibromyalgia.' Using an elegant new laboratory tool, they were able to measure muscle oxygen content with great accuracy and found that it was low in the painful muscles of patients with fibromyalgia."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "What this means for the etiology (cause) of TMS, as I have long maintained, is that fibromyalgia, also known as fibrosis and myofibrositis (and to some as myofasciitis and myofacial pain), is synonomous with TMS. I have treated a large number of patients who came with the diagnosis of fibromyalgia; their medical histories and physical examinations were consistent with severe TMS. As proof that the diagnosis was correct, they recovered completely."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In his later book, The Mindbody Prescription: Healing the Body, Healing the Pain (1998)[24] in which he expanded the TMS diagnosis to other TMS equivalents based on his long experience at the Rusk Institute, he says on pp 76-77, "I have maintained for years that fibromyalgia was a severe form of TMS. The similarity of my findings to the diagnostic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology reinforces that diagnostic conclusion."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "People with fibromyalgia commonly have psychological symptoms as well. They are often anxious and depressed, have sleep problems and suffer from lack of energy."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Since fibromyalgia is part of TMS, I have seen and sucessfully treated many patients who had been given that diagnosis before they came to me."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In Dr. Sarno's latest book, The Divided Mind: The Epidemic of Mindbody Disorders (2006)[25], he says on pp.21-22, "Fibromyalgia is a medical term that has been around for a long time. For some reason it was adopted by the rheumatology community in the early 1980s and applied to patients suffering pain in many locations in the trunk, arms, and legs. In fact, it is a severe form of TMS. Significantly, fibromyalgia patients commonly suffer from other mindbody disorders as well, like headache and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as emotional symptoms including anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. When rheumatologists first became interested in people with these symptoms, they were not able to explain what caused the disorder, but they created diagnostic criteria to define it. That became a kind of medical kiss of death. The American College of Rheumatology decreed that the diagnosis could be made if the person under examination exhibited pain in eleven of a potential eighteen locations. Since that time, hundreds, if not thousands, of papers have been published describing studies that try, still unsuccessfully, to explain the disorder. Two of these published studies of people with fibromyalgia found that the oxygen levels in their muscles was reduced, confirming the hypothesis that fibromyalgia is a manifestation of TMS, which we've seen is caused by mild oxygen deprivation. But the rheumatology community did not accept the idea of mild oxygen deprivation as the cause of fibromyalgia, and the epidemic continued. By the year 2000 the enormous increase in the number of people with this diagnosis prompted an article in The New Yorker magazine by Jerome Groopman, a professor of medicine at Harvard, in which he noted that there were six million Americans (mostly women) with this disorder of unknown cause and that it appeared to be analogous to the nineteenth-century epidemic of neurasthenia."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "The fibromyalgia story is another tragic example of the epidemic proclivity of psychosomatic disorders when they are misdiagnosed and, therefore, inevitably mismanaged." I think we are in near agreement. Ralphyde 18:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually no we aren't. I'm sorry to be blunt, but it's my way. As far as I'm concerned this is just Sarno's quest for glory. Renaming something that already exists and calling it an "invention" is neither a way of obtaining notability, nor is it something I personally find inherently useful. It's taken long enough for the medical fraternity to actually believe in FMS and take action, it does it no service for someone else to come along with another fringe theory and muddy the waters. This is totally out of keeping with an AFD debate, but as you bring it up... No I don't believe (at least not in my case) that FMS is psychosomatic as I have several other things going on (which I'm not going to bring up here) which have a proven physical cause. Nothing so far has changed my mind about TMS being notable, if anything as this discussion goes along I believe it less and less and I'm less inclined to apply the "assume good faith" mantra about Sarno and some of the other editors in this discussion. To my mind there is more going on than meets the eye. Especially given the behaviour and tactics applied by some to get their point across. IMHO anyone who needs to do that to say something is pushing an agenda of some sort (for whatever reason), this in turn makes me think that notability is something that they need to achieve some purpose other than to get an article in Wikipedia. For me the meat-puppetry was both the clincher and several nails in the coffin of this discussion. --WebHamster 20:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Quest for glory"! Give me a break! This man is 84 years old, and still seeing and healing new patients at the Rusk Institute every day, as he has been for 42 years! Does that sound like questing for glory? I'd call it uncommon dedication and devotion to the suffering of his fellow human beings. In terms of "suffering relieved," I can think of no one else on this planet who might have relieved more pain than Dr. Sarno in terms of patients cured directly, and through his books. He is a pioneer of a new paradigm for our time in medicine. FMS had "no cure," just a bunch of symptoms. Why would he take on that name for his psychosomatic diagnosis and cure of chronic back and other pain? But, good luck in finding your cure, sincerely. But I hope you'll read that book I recommended for you, Freedom From Fibromyalgia: The 5 Week Program Proven to Conquer Pain, by Dr. Nancy Selfridge, who cured her own FMS using Dr. Sarno's methods. Maybe you'll change your mind. Ralphyde 21:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 84 stuck in the same place for 42 years, I'd say that was a perfect time for a bit of glorification in the medical history books. Perfect way of gaining immortality I'd say. Now your mileage may vary of course, but personally I wouldn't let an 84 year old near me for treatment. Come to think of it I wouldn't want to be on the same highway as a n 84 year old let alone a treatment clinic. When someone is described as "inventing" a diagnosis then my cynicism antennae are perked up immediately. When I start to mistrust the person making that claim then it's only one more step to distrusting what it is they are saying. So far all you've managed to do (for me) is demonstrate that the guy isn't to be trusted and if he can't be trusted then what he says can't be trusted. If I'm not believing what it is he's saying then I can't believe that it is notable... implausible, incorrect, ludicrous... now I could be persuaded to believe that of his claims, but sorry no. The other thing you have to take into account is that I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms. There are far too many things going against it for my taste. My vote remains the same. Delete. --WebHamster 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I just went to one of the links given in the article, one I hadn't been to yet. $90 for a f***ing DVD, you have to be shitting me? Looks like Sarno himself has proven my above point! --WebHamster 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "Stuck?" in the preeminent Rehabilitaton Institute, Howard A. Rusk Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, in the country? Don't you think he could have retired 20 years ago if he didn't love his job and the personal satisfaction of healing people of years of severe pain? I can't believe your cynicism! But something I agree with you on: "I'm British, and inherently suspicious of anyone who charges for medical treatment. You see profit comes into it then and that in itself opens a whole new can of worms." I would be happy if our medical system were not-for-profit and free like yours and those of most other industrialized countries. That would be a big improvement, as most bankruptcies over here are for medical bills, which are huge, and line the pockets of insurance and drug company CEOs among others. But I've given up on persuading you of anything, as your skepticism and cynicism are way too deep. But good luck on your healing, and you never did say if you watched that 20/20 segment or read that book on Fibromyalgia. Ralphyde 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes I watched the 20/20 segment and apart from it being a puff pience there were a lot of inconsistencies e.g. they all described themselves as being "pain free" after the 3 hour lecture, but then immediately went on to explain what they did when they had relapses. Excuse me but if the pain keeps coming back then that is not "pain free". Likewise they mentioned about how much is being lost because of back pain, but here we go 8 years later no-one has taken up the challenge and put money up to do a full blown study. Just think of all the money that could be saved if he's correct, but no-one has funded him. To me that says a lot, likewise it says a lot when this so-called eminent doctor is hawking his wares all over town. Even in this debate you've been trying to sell his books. So to answer the question about reading the book... there's no way in Hades I would hand over coinage to this guy. $90 for a DVD, how the hell is that justified? This is about money or glory or more likely both. Add to that the intensity of your efforts to get this article into WP and I'm now convinced that this is all about $$$ and nothing more. --WebHamster 01:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Well, I'm truly sorry to get you so upset. But I must say that with your negative attitudes and cynical thoughts, I doubt if you'll ever be open to a real cure. Good luck, though. I feel for you, and all people in chronic pain. Ralphyde 04:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Firstly please don't be so patronising. You're sounding like a salesman who's just realised he isn't going to make a sale. Secondly one last comment about Sarno himself. Any doctor who casually says to a reporter that he is welcome to look though his patient files and then use those files as a source to cold-call those patients is a doctor who should be struck off. That doctor seems to be more concerned with publicity for his pet theory than he is for patient confidentiality. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Guys....nothing to do with the AfD, all it's doing is making a lot of noise for zero input into the discussion over whether or not the article should be deleted. Shot info 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable per WP:N. There seems to be a lot of hand waving here trying to establish notability but they don't override policy. There is zero third party references used, in particular references by reliable sources seem to be lacking, particularly those that mention the expression outside of an insular fringe community. At the moment the article reads like it's lifted from Sarno's books (possible WP:COPYVIO) and generally appears to be "advertising" his information (possible WP:SPAM). Probably could be merged with Sarno and trimmed to reflect it's relevance. Shot info 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I believe that the subject Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) meets the Wikipedia criteria, which require the article to be WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. The notability and verifiability come from a small number of articles in journals, an article in a medical school's proceedings and an article on Prevention magazine's web site. I just added citations for the medical school and Prevention magazine articles. Currently, the Wikipedia TMS article only has one reference to a medical journal article on TMS. This article is in the journal "Evidence Based Integrative Medicine", which is not included in PubMed. I will work on getting other journal articles added to the footnotes. Although the TMS treatment has not been studied with controlled clinical trials, such proof is not required for a Wikipedia article. Also, the topic of TMS is not original research because of the articles mentioned above, as well as the numerous books which mention TMS. Perhaps individual statements in the Wikipedia TMS article are original research, but that does not affect the proposed article deletion. JTSchreiber 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC) — JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Bfigura (talk) 04:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Follow-up. I have added two more journal articles to the footnotes. Here is a list of the sources which need to be evaluated to see whether the article is WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable (in approximate descending order of reliability by Wikipedia policies): (a) three articles in peer-reviewed medical journals-Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, Evidence Based Integrative Medicine and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, (b) one article in a peer-reviewed psychology journal-Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, (c) one article in a medical school's proceedings-Proceedings of UCLA Healthcare, (d) two articles on mainstream medical media web sites-Medscape and Prevention magazine, and (e) one segment on a nation-wide American TV newsmagazine-20/20.
-
- Here are some additional comments on the sources. First, each of the articles focuses on TMS, rather than mentioning it briefly. Second, I want to note that even thought the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation article is a supplement, this journal conducts peer reviews on supplement articles. Third, the footnotes also contain an abstract for a paper presented at a medical conference. I am not sure whether an abstract without the full article should carry much weight, so I did not list it above. Finally, although I definitely appreciate Parsiful’s efforts to add references, I do not believe the Harvard RSI Action Group reference should be considered in the AfD evaluation. This group is composed of Harvard students with no medical training.
-
- Thanks to all who provided constructive criticism and/or helped to clean up the article.JTSchreiber 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note to closing administrator. I've already !voted above, but I got frustrated with some of the arguing here, so I have edited the article a bit for NPOV, and I added a reference from Medscape Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine. I had never edited or even seen this article before this AfD, but since there are references available, I thought I'd add some. So if you had looked at the article previously, please recheck it before closing the AfD. --Parsifal Hello 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Follow-up. I've now rewritten much of the article, made it much more NPOV, removed unsourced information, added several more references, and tightened up all of the language. I believe it's now completely clear that this article is not spam. The condition has even been the subject of a full 20 minute segment on ABC TV's 20/20 show; that certainly supports that, while controversial, this topic is fully notable and verifiable. --Parsifal Hello 09:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. I wanted to say I much prefer Parsifal's edits of the page. This version doesn't read like an advertising blurb from the back of a book. Clearly expressed are both the potential value and the unverified and non-mainstream nature of TMS. This is much more credible a page overall to me. PenguinEatingAnApple 10:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC) — PenguinEatingAnApple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at UTC timestamp Djma12 (talk) 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
-
- Keep - I don't agree with the request to delete. Dr Sarno's first book was published in the 70s (I think) and is still available today. So is broadly read not an 'insular fringe community' as quoted above. A major contribution to mind-body medicine, which is slowly growing in acceptance judging by the increased mentions in the media. Longshanks 01:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
— Sillver Mountain (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Evb-wiki 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- - also note the use of "[[User:Sillver Mountain|Longshanks]]" above - not sure if that's an intentional attempt to mislead or not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacula (talk • contribs)
- - - Ha Ha - no not an attempt to mislead,just trying to get the hang of this script! Editors here seem to be virtually all software engineers or similar - not sure if such scientific types would give a fair appraisal of TMS, non-scientific mind-body theory - though I'm sure they will insist they are following wiki rules.Longshanks 03:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- It most certainly is an attempt to mislead. Your user name is not Longshanks, it's Sillver Mountain. If it's 2 people sharing an account then please don't, get your own it's against the rules. Please see WP:U#Sharing accounts. --WebHamster 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think the article should stay but, as others have said, monitored for NPOV. I recoverd from excruciating RSI by using the mind-body techniques of Sarno, Schlechter and others. Had I not found out about it I would still be in pain, depressed, and not able to pursue my career. People should have the option of knowing there are other ways of treating chronic pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnels2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- — Jnels2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 00:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment You are correct, WebHamster, I have made absolutely no other edits outside of this topic. I am one of those people who found out about this discussion from the TMSForum site and came over here to register my opinion that the article should stay. Actually, I hardly ever go to TMSForum because I don't think about my erstwhile RSI much anymore, nor do I want to. But once in a blue moon I go back there to see what people are talking about, and I saw the discussion about the potential pending delete for the TMS article and I thought I'd make my very first foray in to Wikipedia to make a comment. If people think this is a crack-pot idea, then maybe the "controversy" section should be bolstered, but why delete the whole thing? I myself found out about the TMS/Sarno/Schechter/Amir school of thought completely by accident, but I'll tell you that I am really thankful I did. Basically what happened is that I didn't believe it, I read the books, I started thinking about it and saying to myself "well, why not give this approach a try? He's not advocating any drugs, surgery, or anything that could harm me, he's just saying to think about pain in a different way, i.e. that it's tension-related." And 2 weeks later a 2 year struggle with excruciating pain was over, and I was back to using the computer full time and was pain free. That was 2 years ago. Basically, I read a couple of books and I got better. MUCH more preferable to me than wrist surgery, anti-inflammatory medicine, splints and the like. It would be too bad if this article got deleted. I think people need to have more options rather than fewer when it comes to their health. -jnels2
-
-
- Reason for the number of meatpuppets - I thought editors would find this post by Ralphyde on the TMS Forum interesting. Help on Wikipedia Djma12 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment I have no regrets about what I said on that post. The TMS Help Forum is a website where people afflicted with chronic pain from tension myositis syndrome assist each other in applying Dr. Sarno's and the other doctors' mindbody treatments to reach successful healing of their pain. There are many success stories posted there [[26]] as well by those who have come through and gotten well from chronic back pain, fibromyalgia, RSI, and other variations of TMS, and I invite you to go there and read some of them. Some take longer and are still struggling to adopt the proper attitudes and overcome their doubts to beat TMS. This is a critical topic for most of the people who post here, and many of them first heard of tension myositis syndrome from Wikipedia as they researched their symptoms, which should be part of its purpose, to let people find out about what ails them and seek healing. Most went through the conventional medical community for years with no relief from their painful symptoms, so when they found out about TMS, they began to get their lives back. So when a person who knows nothing about the subject marks it for deletion for bogus reasons, then deletes all links to it from related subjects, then reverts all my attempts to repair his vandalism, and others who know nothing about the subject pile on, I sounded the alarm for help from others for whom this is an important subject who might also be Wikipedia editors. There are those who are hopelessly biased, such as WebHamster, a fibromyalgia sufferer, who has made 31 negative posts to this site so far, who is so personally attached to his belief that his ailment is physical that he attibutes bogus motives to everything anyone else says to hold onto that belief, and wishes to deny other fibromyalgia sufferers access to this important healing method. As he said, "No information is better than bad information," which reminds me of the Taliban blowing up ancient Buddhist statues. Yet the section on WP:FRINGE, says, "By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong." Ralphyde 17:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Way to go Ralph. Wiping your feet on (and admitting to) WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVAS#Stealth canvassing, WP:OR. WP:FRINGE and WP:SOCK all in one paragraph. There's probably more too. May I point out that you know next to nothing about me so keep the personal comments out of it okay? Save that for the TMS forum where my ailments are being cogitated (incorrectly as it happens) by people who wouldn't know neutral if someone gave them a flyer with Webster's definition of "neutral" written on it in 72pt Inpact. --WebHamster 18:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- You're right, WebHamster, I know next to nothing about you except what you have posted above in 32 or more posts, in which you said you had fibromyalgia and pointed me to your talk page, and the unending negativity of your posts. I tried to engage you in a reasonable discussion, but got only negativity, biased projections, and ridiculous attributions about Dr. Sarno's motives in return. I don't think I've been uncivil, but if you do, I apologize. Ralphyde 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but debates mostly have one person being positive and the other being negative? The view of that polarity depends on one's outlook. You appear to believe that because I haven't changed my mind that I'm somehow in the wrong. Has it not occurred to you that you haven't shifted your position one iota either? Which from my standpoint makes you the negative one who won't change his mind. It's all about perspective and subjectivety. As for the Sarno accusations. I saw the evidence and said what I saw. Just out of interest, just how much does that 3 hour lecture cost? I ask purely for balance of course. I explained my rationale ($90 DVD etc), yours seems to be based purely on your word with nothing else to back it up other than "buy the book". --WebHamster 19:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I don't know that cost. I think it's part of the treatment. But you tell me, how much would it be worth if it cured your fibromyalgia? Ralphyde 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Just get Sarno to fax the script to my GP and I'll get it for nothing. Now please leave me and the FMS out of it. The discussion has been sidelined far too much already. I'll say the same to you as I do to anyone who comes to my door. "No thanks, I never ever, buy from someone who tries to sell me something. They aren't impartial. I buy from where I choose to go". Now please feel free to have the last word, it's more than likely a repeat anyway. --WebHamster 20:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks. But I didn't come to your door, nor try to sell you anything. I'd say you came to mine by responding to my post. I've simply tried to educate you and the others here with regard to the tension myositis syndrome diagnosis and cure that has worked for tens of thousands of pain sufferers. Here's another good educational interview from 2007 [[27]] in place of that fax you requested. It won't cost you a thing, and you might even learn something. Best wishes, Ralphyde 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[edit] Start over
- Comment - Based on the edits made by Parsifal, I think the discussion on the AFD should be re-started, essentially ignoring the above discussion 'cause it's so long and the page has changed so much. My reading of the page as it exists now is that it passes WP:N and can stay up, though there are still significant problems. Congratulations Parsifal for putting in the work to make this enormous discussion obselete :) Who's with me? WLU 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment
Second that. I don't know if there's a precedent or not,but this AfD has gotten absurd. But on further thought, I don't want to do this over.--Bfigura (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- God no - I could not stand following another five days of this drivel back and forth. --Evb-wiki 23:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- Following Parsifal's pruning and other contributors work to remove the hyperbole, rhetoric and spam. A keep purely on the basis that it's encyclopaedic. Total WP:BOLLOCKS, but encyclopaedic bollocks. --WebHamster 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Based purely on Parsifal's good work. Ralphyde's serious violations of CANVASS notwithstanding. Since this is not a vote, the number of "votes" that are not legitimate shouldn't sway the admin who decides this. They should not count for a keep, and even if Ralphyde were punished for doing it, it should not count against the article's status. I think Parsifal has brought this article up to a notable standard for inclusion. I'll reword my vote above. -- Fyslee/talk 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Still Delete, NO REBOOT
-
- If you'll ask the majority of non-meatpuppets on this page, I'm sure the still conclude that this article does not "pass WP:N and can stay up." Though I appreciate Parsifal's substantial efforts for this page, this article still fails WP:Avoid_neologisms, the academic standards of WP:CITE, and WP:SPAM.
- The discussion should definitely NOT be rebooted. There are still substantial, unaddressed criticisms that can not be easily reproduced after a reboot.
- Any attempt to reboot now will merely be an attempt to swing an Afd by attrition -- delaying AfD enough until the critics tire and drop out. This is completely against the spirit of AfD.
-
- Comment - the 20/20 segment is verifiably about Sarno and TMS, I think a US national news program means the article passes notability. Add to that several interviews and a conference abstract and I think the page passes. Not with flying colours, but passes. Problems with the article, the AFD meatpuppetting and the whole AFD are independent of notability, which is established in my mind. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per my comments above - 20/20 interview, conference abstract and interviews establish notability. WLU 09:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Subject appears to be well documented and written about, even if the information about the subject is negative; the fact that people are compelled to publish critisism of it shows that it has some sway. My understanding is that if something is notable, "people want to write about it" - therefore this subject is notable. Denaar 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - in my opinion this condition could/should be considered as part of Fibromyalgia - having a separate entry for Tension myositis syndrome is making a distinction without a difference. Frig ears 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- — Frig ears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ---- WebHamster 19:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Today's New York Times had two paragraphs on Sano and TMS, calling his work pioneering and one of the "most common back pain treatments". I think WP:N may be a bit too strict if Wikipedia's standards are higher than those of 20/20 and the New York Times. Parsifal's rewrite addresses NPOV and quality issues. Billgordon1099 17:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Since the idea of re-starting the AfD !votes in this section seems to be happening, I'm noting my "keep" !vote here. I should be clear, I did already vote "keep" near the top of the AfD - this is not intended as a duplicate vote, I'm just transferring it down to this section for visibility. My reasons for keep are that the topic satisfies WP:N and WP:V, per the 20/20 show, the NY Times mention, the Medscape interview, and more. Now that the article has been re-written, it also meets WP:NPOV. All the spam-ish links and related text have been removed; and the article has plenty of inline references to reliable sources. Plus, there are 38 or so more books listed on Google Books mentioning the term, that we have not yet explored. Some of those may be too minor to be helpful, but some of them may turn out to be good sources to continue expanding the article over time after the AfD. --Parsifal Hello 18:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- See, this is what I'm afraid of. I know you mean well Parsifal, but this "Reboot" thing has only confused the AfD even more. A substantial number of the original editors who felt this article violated policy have moved on to other projects, leaving only the hardcore Keep editors to continue voting (as if this were a vote.) This concept in itself is prejudicial. Djma12 (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I don't think we need to worry about that. The closing admin will not be confused - he or she will see the whole flow of the discussion. This is not a counting-vote, we're looking for consensus. Also, the article as it is now is completely different than it was when this AfD started. So anyone who !voted at the top was looking at a different article. It was spam-ish before, now it's a solid NPOV article worked on by multiple good-faith editors, with no COI and plenty of reliable sources. By the way, in case there's any question on this - I did not start the "re-boot" section myself, I'm just going with the flow. Finally, I should mention that it's not accurate to characterize these later entries as "hardcore Keep editors"; for one thing, there are at least two experienced editors who entered !votes in this section who did not comment above, and also, it looks like three of these new "keep" votes are reversals of prior delete votes. That's a valid and proper use of this debate process; the votes changed because the article improved. --Parsifal Hello 02:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why would only people who wanted to Keep the article still be following it? On another AfD, not a million miles away, I have said Delete and have now been told that only those who are hardcore deletists are still following the vote!!! Blimey. Dunno if I'm coming or going.... Marcus22 15:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a copy of my previous vote down to the "Start over" section. My reasoning remains very similar as in the follow-up to my previous vote. The only change is that there are now two more sources (the NY and Seattle newspapers) to support WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. JTSchreiber— JTSchreiber (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Still a keep for me too. Marcus22 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Can someone please explain why even the "improved" article passes WP:NEO? To quote, "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." The article self-admits that 99.999% of the medical community does not recognize the phrase, and only a small community of Sarno believes in it. This is, by definition, a neologism. Having a 20/20 segment debunk it does not magically make it more adherent to WP:NEO.Djma12 (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's a red herring and does not apply to this decision. TMS is not a neologism at all. It's not even a "new" term, - Sarno's first book about it was written 25 years ago in 1982, several more books followed later; the ABC segment was in 1999. That excludes it from the definition of neologism, by longevity. Also, it's is a definition of a medical condition, not a linguistic construct that has not made it into the dictionary yet. Even if it were a neologism, which it's not, the "nutshell" of WP:NEO states this : "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." And we do have reliable sources, many of them.
-
- Your use of the word "debunk" to describe the 20/20 segment is completely off-track, Have you watched the entire segment? While Stossel acknowledges the condition and treatment are not used by mainstream medicine, overall the segment is strongly positive. And as an aside, even if the segment were debunking, that would not reduce the notability of a topic being discussed on a major USA national news show, though it would change the way the segment was described in the article. But, that's neither here nor there, because the show did not not debunk, not anywhere close to that, which you can see if you watch the video.
- Further on a procedural basis, WP:NEO is a guideline, not a policy, whereas WP:V and WP:N are core policies, clearly satisfied by this article in that the condition has been explored on a major national news show, mentioned in major metropolitan newspapers and by many other reliable sources. --Parsifal Hello 18:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- More references. I added another reference today, a book by Dr. By René Cailliet, with a four page sub-chapter chapter on TMS. The name "Tension myositis syndrome" is listed as a sub-chapter heading in the table of contents, along with various other possible causes of back pain. To be clear about the qualifications of the author, Dr. Cailliet is not an "alternative practioner", he is himself quoted in books like this one: Burchiel, Kim (2002). Surgical Management of Pain. Thieme, 134. ISBN 0865779120. I did not add this second book to the article because it does not directly mention TMS, however, it does quote Calliet stating that Sarno's "conclusions may be questioned, but his diagnosis of 'nonorganic signs' raises a question that current knowledge of low back disorders does not answer." I'm providing this for context only, to support the reliability of the source of the reference I added, and also to show that Sarno has not been dismissed as a kook by "real doctors"; his ideas are mentioned here by a physician specializing in back pain, in a serious medical text about surgical pain management. I'm not jumping to conclusions and saying Sarno's diagnosis is widely accepted; this is just one more example that the notability of the condition extends beyond Sarno's books and interviews. He had no direct involvement with Cailliet's book. I don't have time to seek out more right now, but I thought it would be useful to add at least one more, to show by how quickly that could be done, that we are not at a loss for finding additional third-party sources. This further confirms notability and verifiability.--Parsifal Hello 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:NEO doesn't apply. It's a described medical diagnosis of dubious merit, but it verifiably exists, which is the threshold for notability. Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth, and TMS is a verifiable, though possibly completely imaginary. WLU 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I really must give applause to the efforts of those who have been seriously attempting to fix the problems in this article, especially compared to the mindless bleating that's taken up most of the space in this 'discussion'. That said, there is still one important question that I'd like to see answered before this matter is closed: what exactly is TMS that makes it a distinct subject? From my perspective, it seems like nothing but a fancy label that Dr. Sarno has created for 'psychosomatic pain', possibly (warning: wild personal speculation) to avoid the stigma of words like 'psychogenic' and 'psychosomatic'? While Dr. Sarno's ideas and methods may be valid (my own personal leaning is that there is some merit to them), that doesn't mean that there should be a seperate article on them. Until TMS becomes accepted enough that it's possible to talk about it without referring to Dr. Sarno, and is used by more than the current handful of doctors who follow Dr. Sarno's work, I think information about it should be placed in the article on Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 20:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply. What makes this a distinct topic is that the term "Tension myositis syndrome" is WP:Verifiable and WP:Notable. Most of your comment is WP:Original research. It's not our job to figure out if TMS is the same as psychosomatic pain - that's the job of others. Our job is to report what has been said by reliable sources about the topic. It doesn't matter if we think it's a real medical condition, or if it's the same as something else.
-
- It's incorrect that the clinic you linked are the only ones using his methods. There are some number of clinics that do (I haven't counted them), and multiple books written by doctors and other authors not associated with that clinic.
-
- I understood why you nominated the article for deletion at first, since it did not have third-party references and had lots of self-published links. But now that the article has so many reliable secondary sources, I don't understand why you still want it deleted. Dr. Sarno is a person, he's notable and he is covered by a biographical article in Wikipedia. "Tension myositis syndrome" is not biographical, it's a medical condition with a definition and a treatment; it's controversial; it has not been widely accepted by the medical establishment; but it has been reported in large-scale mainstream media, in many books about healing back pain (only some of those books are written by his associates), and in various other sources listed in the article and elsewhere. That's a separate topic and not part of a biography. --Parsifal Hello 20:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Reply - I guess my primary remaining concern is the question of if the phrase 'tension myositis syndrome' itself passes the WP:NEO test. Virtually all of the notable references to term that I've been able to find refer to it as 'a term coined by Dr. Sarno' or something similar, and I'm not sure if that's good enough to not qualify as a neologism. I am not arguing that the theory behind this is non-notable - but I also don't think that the name that Dr. Sarno invented for it is. At the least, not until the name can be found in secondary sources without being refering to as being a phrase coined by Dr. Sarno. - Pacula 21:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Here's a few... It's a notable topic. It's not the same topic as Dr. Sarno's biography. There are references that don't mention Sarno; some are even in the article already, such as the ones by his associates, like Dr. Schecter and others. While they may be associates, they are separate people, some have separate clinics, and they often use the term without mentioning him, should they all be moved into his biography too?
- Aside from his associates, there are plenty of professionals who use the diagnosis and treatment method in their private practices or pain management and/or psychotherapy clinics, often without writing about Sarno. Here are several I found quickly: Susan Farber, psychotherapist - support groups for care-givers and individuals with brain injury, stroke, and chronic pain; Chiropractor professional organization in South Carolina; Here's a blogger with a Master's degree in Public Health who mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: Tension Myositis Syndrome: Low Back Pain Related to Stress: Cause, Origin, Symptoms and Treatment Options; Here's a seminar workshop program that mentions TMS and does not mention Sarno: NEW YORK SOCIETY OF CLINICAL HYPNOSIS, 19thAnnual Clinical Hypnosis Workshop for Health-Care Professionals, Workshop by Marlene Levy, PhD, AAPM; and ... here's a book that lists TMS as one possible cause of back pain that results in lost work days, among a list of other causes, and this book does not include the name of Dr. Sarno: Sall, MD, Richard E. (2004). Strategies in Workers' Compensation. Hamilton Books, 91. ISBN 0761827714. . (This is a good solid reference, I'll add it to the article).
- Now, even though I provided some examples of what you wanted, I do not think that these examples were needed to establish the article as notable or separate from his biography. But I went ahead and found them anyway just to make the point that they can be found. I did this in 15 minutes, so imagine what someone could accomplish if they were to do some real research on the topic. This article is not at all like what it was when you originally wanted to delete it; has lots of reliable sources, is NPOV and fits well within Wikipedia policies for inclusion. --Parsifal Hello 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I hearby stand corrected on the matter, and once again commend you on your persevereness. I was already realizing how weak what was left of my argument was, and now you've gone and completely finished it off. :) - Pacula 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Change of mind due to revamped article: Keep - The article at the time of the AFD nomination was a horrid biased mess, but things have improved dramatically since then, having essentially been rewritten from scratch. Since the article now handles the topic in an appropriately neutral way, and shows notability without trying to claim that the ideas aren't without controversy, I no longer see any reason to object to it's presence. - Pacula 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 14:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Relisted because one user expressed strong opposition on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Melody Max
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 20:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless awards/nominations/notability is found Corpx 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. Tabercil 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 47 films, in the porn industry is almost nothing. --Evb-wiki 15:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. <joke>Although a picture of her could change my vote.</joke> Zouavman Le Zouave 16:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, she is noted for beginning a trend in pornography. and that is totally a valid ctiteria to perserve. --Kaaveh 01:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- And exactly what trend is it that she has begun? The article doesn't suggest such a thing. --Evb-wiki 01:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Half Persian, half French, all trivial. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Carioca 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Authorgeddon
Looks like OR. Recommend delete Dchall1 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No WP:RS provided. Boarderline WP:BOLLOCKS. --Evb-wiki 15:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Seems to stem from one article (from which is could be sourced). But I don't find this notable, it is nothing more than a fancy name for the day two lines in a statistic meet. Unless, of course, we find some sources which indicate this term is being used in actual discussion among publishers, critics, or what-have-you. Lundse 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Until the term is used by outside sources, it is OR.--Danaman5 17:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely looks like OR. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm not able to find anything that meets WP:RS that mentions this term. It all seems to be quotes and reprints of the original material by lulu.com. --Darkwind (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moncy Pothen
Author fails WP:BIO. No independent sources have been added since more than half a year, although there was some intense debate with the original contributor, User:Nribooks. PROD was contested by User:Nribooks too. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable, even if her name does sound like Monty Python. Mandsford 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Apparently non-notable. No independent sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Real author, real book, but no attribution of notability from independent sources. Little found in a search of Google News Archive, only his own books on Google Books. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] MaxBats
In one year this article has never contained anything but advertising copy and blurry pictures. It is possible this company may be notable, but the article needs to be euthanized. edg ☺ ★ 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic and WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a place to get free advertising! Zouavman Le Zouave 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as tedious ad copy that fails to demonstrate notability. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge to Antipsychology. As this article is poorly written and clearly unencyclopedic I am not going to cut-and-paste merge this. The article history remains available behind the redirect, I will leave it to interested and knowledgable editors to perform the merge as they see fit. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Psychoheresy
Advocacy for and against a neologism of marginal notability. There's not much factual or sourced info to merge. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge what's useful with Antipsychology, as a suggested alternative to deletion. More here than just a "neologism", but this article is heavy on POV. Mandsford 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge as per Mandsford. Unless source come up about this being a big movement and not just a new book and its new fans. Lundse 15:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge carefully - A lot of the article is not really written in an encyclopedic tone. Needs in-text citations, especially for the quotes; but it appears to be the subject of some study. So, merge with Antipsychology, which is described in this article as "another term synonymous with psychoheresy," but more general. That makes this a good canditate for merging if the content is cleaned up and the references are integrated properly. ◄Zahakiel► 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, don't merge. It's an essay that plugs a series of publications. If it's notable enough to be added to Antipsychology, it will get there anyway. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gay square dance
I think there must be a Rule 34.1 of IRL: There's a "gay" version of it, no exceptions. So do we really really need articles about things like gay square dance, gay weightlifting, gay parkour, gay aviation, gay high energy physics... - ∅ (∅), 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page because of the same concern (and because this is even less notable):
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Becksguy 11:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep all I'm not gay, nor have I been to a square dance in the last 20 years, but this is notable enough. I disagree with the argument that this is simply a variation on something that everyone does. Unlike weightlifting, parkour (?), aviation or even high energy physics, squaredancing requires a large group of people no matter what their orientations may be. You might as well argue that a gay and lesbian pride parade is just a parade with the word "gay" attached to it. This has events, clubs, and a long history... and apparently, a large following. Notable enough for me. Mandsford 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/merge No reason to have a specific article for this. If gay squaredance is sufficiently different from normal squaredance, then we can add a note under squaredance and maybe redirect from here. Lundse 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - reliable sources attesting to the notability of the topics exist, for instance here and here, and a bit more here. Otto4711 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a widespread variation with reliable sources. The point is that "gay parkour" would not be appreciably different from "straight" parkour (or whatever), while square dancing conventions must be violated in certain obvious ways to be a gay activity. --Dhartung | Talk 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- But why not make a section under square dance? Surely there is not all that many things to say which are interesting for an encyclopedia? I am not arguing this does not exist or that it is not a notable variation - I just do not agree that it has to have its own article. I could be wrong, though, maybe there is enough to write on this as a social phenomenon (I just have my doubts)... Lundse 18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- If you agree that the variation is notable but don't believe it should have its own article, then the proper course would have been to place merge tags on the articles and work it out editorially. Otto4711 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Uhm - I did not open this AfD... So "proper course" was to state my point of view here. But you are right that I should change my vote to merge...Lundse 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you agree that the variation is notable but don't believe it should have its own article, then the proper course would have been to place merge tags on the articles and work it out editorially. Otto4711 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep As per Dhartung, this has to be significantly different from "straight square dance" and has been around for a long time, and is notable per Otto4711. Accounting4Taste 18:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Square dancing. Is there non-gay squaredancing? "Honor your partner, honor your corner, allemand left, do-si-do." Edison 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I also think it would be best to merge this with the square dancing article. Nlm1515 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Square dancing is a partner and group dance activity with its roots in conservative cultures and was utilized not only as a social activity but to foster traditional hetero courtship and rituals. Gay square dancing is unique and separate from the original form and has developed its own customs, traditions and protocols. Although at one point it could have been merged into a larger article about square dancing it would most likely be swiftly annexed onto it's own. Benjiboi 11:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep also International Association of Gay Square Dance Clubs (thought there were two AfDs to comment so my apologies for double posts). This international organization has 80 clubs and some 20 years of history? Seems notable enough just as if there were a group of the same size and scope with some other defining commonality. Benjiboi 11:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Demonstrated notability. • Lawrence Cohen 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please read WP:N then show what the "multiple independent and reliable sources" are with "substantial coverage" of the subject. I see no sources in the article itself. Some are cited here. The one from the NY Times says "the moves are the same" which means that rather than "gay square dancing" this is "square dancing by gays". The article itself says that these factors are seen in square dancing by (nongay) youth dancers. I also see no meaningful distinction between gay and non-gay square dancing, other than subjective and unsupported claims of "higher energy level," younger participants, changing of partners, and casual clothing. This does not justify a separate article; it just shows that gay people participate in a common recreation. Similarly showing that gay people do similar activities to non-gay people would not justify "Gay roofing" or "Gay lawn mowing" articles, even if they did it with "greater energy" and in more casual clothing. Edison 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- You are gravely mischaracterizing the first source that I listed, which is an substantial piece about both the phenomenon and the Association. That piece touches on such issues as resistance to gays participating in straight square dancing clubs, how the moves are different than in straight square dancing and how some gay square dancers risk discharge from the military under DADT for wanting to participate. Otto4711 21:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep
CommentEdison, I would agree that there is no need for articles such as gay roofing, gay lawn mowing, or gay aviation. There the assumption of heterosexuality is not central to the activity, since the primary purpose is to perform useful work. But the assumption of heterosexuality is the essence of certain social activities, such as square dancing or school proms. These are social courtship activities, or derived from courtship rituals, that are based on having a partner of the opposite sex. The comments and sources provided by User:Otto4711 and the comments by User:Benjiboi are particularity pertinent and thoughtful here. As is the comment by User:Mandsford referring to a gay parade as just a parade with gays, using your logic, if I understand it correctly. Please reread the comments and references, especially the article by Smiley, as I see them strongly supporting the notability of and rationale for a meaningful distinction between each square dancing context. It isn't just energy or clothes. Thank you. - Becksguy 01:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) - Keep I strongly agree with Edison, Gay Square Dancing is very different from Gay Aviation et all. The article clearly needs improvement, but I believe it could be a valuable article at some point. Kootenayvolcano 06:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- CommentSorry Becksguy, it is you (above) who I am agreeing with, not Edison, as I stated earlier- I mistyped myself. Kootenayvolcano 21:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is meaningful, as stated above, and I would agree with Becksguy that in general activities otherwise based on conventional heterosexuality might be expected to have significant variation. I'm glad some real sources were found.DGG (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable, verifiably large cultural phenomenon, and with reliable sources, above, and as "dog bites man" situation per Becksguy, Edison, and Benjiboi. Bearian 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep
very notableNotable and also the difference between Gay Square Dance and Square Dance is also different than the difference between gay weight lifting and regular weightliftitng because the gay doesnt refer to the person doing it it refers to the originaters of the style members of The [IAGSDC] because a gay person can do regular Square Dancing and a straight person can do Gay Square Dancing so its talking about a major style of dance not a type of person doing a dance --Shimonnyman03:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)edit: 19:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - Tongue in cheek comment - Why don't we redirect it to morris dance! - ∅ (∅), 07:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected - I looked through it and really couldn't find any quotes that would benefit the The Last Unicorn article. Anyone who finds something noteworthy (Last version before redirect) is welcome to transfer them. Note also that Kizor (talk · contribs) has moved some items to WikiQuote. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Last Unicorn Butterfly
Though I think it is important to mention that the butterfly character in The Last Unicorn (film) only communicated through quotations, a long list of all his quotes is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I think the page would be better off in Wikiquote than here. SilentAria talk 14:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Minor merge &) Delete The premise of this article is very similar to "... in popular culture" articles, just the other way around. Since no sources are there to back up both notability and verifiability, it seems like the whole article is Original research. The article is currently orphaned (I don't know since when), and it seems its main article The Last Unicorn (film) doesn't regard this topic as very notable either. Two or three examples from the list could be merged to the main article as examples, delete the rest. – sgeureka t•c 14:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge into The Last Unicorn. Author's purpose is to explain (or annotate) some of the dialogue in the film. I oppose the idea of doing a Wikiquote, since these were all spoken first by somebody else. Mandsford 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- (Minor merge &) Delete this belongs in wikiquote, if anywhere. I don't think a minor character from a minor movie is notable, and I cannot see this article going anywhere useful unless as a place to dump the quotes within wikipedia-space. Lundse 15:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - once the quotes are removed, what's left is an unexpandable stub. -- Whpq 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-viable fork. I'm sure there's a place for it somewhere (queue the standard "There's a Place for Us" from West Side Story...) but that place is not Wikipedia. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Flyaow
This was originally deleted as CSD G11 spam. DRV overturned, finding that this was not "blatant" advertising. Still, weak delete, over WP:CORP concerns. Xoloz 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - If the article's claim is correct that this was the first indexing site then it is notable. It seems well sourced and doesn't seem to be written in a tone that suggests advertising - Fosnez 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, seems to pass WP:WEB, seems to at least somewhat pass WP:RS, WP:V. Can't find anything that says it was the first, though. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Don't see how it meets WP:WEB, but I might be missing something. Reads like an advertisement to me, that plus the WP:WEB bit and nobody wanting to take on the job of fixing this up... delete. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Seeing that it appeared in WP:RS sources earlier than any other airline portal (in particular San Francisco Chronicle and Asia Week articles cited in the article) it does appear to be the first, or at the very least, the first comprehensive one. Take a look at that San Francisco Chronicle article. It discusses Alaska Airlines planning to sell airline tickets online as if it is something quite new, and then mentions the site in question and no other sites. Similarly the Asia Week article cites the site in question as, '...possibly the most exhaustive list of existing sites. All the major carriers have them -- and some more obscure ones too.' when trying to explain to readers what the web does in terms of travel (back when people still were unfamiliar with the concept of using the web to book travel). In terms of WP:V the site is listed with the Library of Congress in the U.S., which strikes me as WP:V. 07:42, 12 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.96.26 (talk)
- Keep - has reliable soruces. -- Whpq 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - lots of reliable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.205.40 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bus Vibe
Article fails to establish notability. No reference when searching for "Bus Vibe" in Google. Lugnuts 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. Apparently they are "famous" for selling 50,000 cds. Doesn't have any references and apparently they are an "upcoming rock band"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Of course, if they do become world famous they can have an article--Phoenix 15 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 as non-notable band, no notability established. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ritz Guitars. I know there were no explicit \"relist\" suggestions, but this content is better covered under the target article. Should substantial infomation be found to make a standalone article about WRC, the redirect can be removed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WRC guitars
Content fork from Ritz Guitars so this is redundant. Seraphim Whipp 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I actually meant to prod this... d'oh... Now I realise this should be speedied for advertising... Seraphim Whipp 13:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Ritz Guitars, leaving WRC guitars as the main article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm a bit rubbish at using TW at the moment 8-). Do you think the link to the catalogue should be removed? That's why I pegged it as advertising, as I thought it might be a subtle attempt. Thanks for sorting it all out :). Seraphim Whipp 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This one line article will never demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 13:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an article can be sourced, it should be sourced - the potential existence of sources does not supercede the need for said sources. Those interested in keeping this article should work to include these sources to ensure it does not end up on AfD again in the near future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nick Speed
This has been around for almost a year, yet the only source cited is a MySpace. No multiple, non-trivial references to establish notability. Spellcast 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete,redirect to G-Unit Records The only other source I can see is a trivial one in a Detroit paper.--Sethacus 15:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - It's not cited, but it CAN be - doesn't meet a deletion criteria. He's produced for highly notable people, there must be something out there. Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 12:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I Googled "Nick Speed" "producer" "-com" and got 35 hits. None suggest notability. MarkBul 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Doesn't need to be deleted, just needs an {{unreferenced}} tag. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The "unreferenced" tag has been there for over a year now and not a single reliable source has been added since its creation. Maybe this suggests none exist? It would be ok if this was recreated with third party sources, but right now there are none that can be found to establish notability. Spellcast 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Those Google results only reveal very brief and trivial mentions. There could at least be one cover story, but there doesn't seem to be. The statement that "there must be something out there" is just speculation. Like WP:V says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it", so the policy overrides all arguments. Spellcast 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep highly notable producer, and obviously written by the man himself, as with Elzhi. Check out what links hereCosprings 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you can give a couple of sources to prove he's notable, I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Also, how do you know it was written by him? Spellcast 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep/No consensus. — Scientizzle 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Long Healing Prayer
This particular prayer is one of many and doesn't seem notable. There are no authoritative commentaries on this particular prayer, and there is not much to say other than that the prayer exists. In the case of Tablet of the Holy Mariner there is sufficient context to make the page notable and expandable. The Long Healing Pryaer could be mentioned on another page like Baha'i teachings. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 12:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Not that I've got anything against the Bahais or Bahaullah in general, but this article does nothing more that mention that there's a prayer, and it doesn't direct you to a source that contains the text. It does direct you to a site that has a presentation that says it will go on for "36 minutes"... shorter than the average wait in a doctor's office, I guess. Mandsford 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Merge or keep. This would be stronger as one paragraph of a long article on the writings of Bahá'u'lláh; but I see no reason to lose the information. There is a link to the text of the prayer, in English translation; it's under References, not Extrernal links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a significant prayer ritual, so the case for notability would be roughly similar to that for the Kaddish, allowing for the latter's much longer history. "Long Healing Prayer" is simply what it's called in English. There's a reasonable amount of description and history in there already. The text is quoted, and I don't think an external link to the complete text is necessary (although it can be found here). -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - non admin, so tagged with {{db-afd}} (Before you kill me, remember, we have a 4 day backlog on AfD closures at the moment). Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Asia Miles
It appears to me that this article is in violation of WP:NOT#INFO, in addition to WP:V, as I can't find reliable, third party sources which give this FFP notability in an encyclopaedic context. It should be noted that the tendency is for airline articles to mention these FFP in the main article, rather than a stand alone 'travel guidish' article on programs which aren't notable on their own. Russavia 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Asia Miles is a pretty popular frequent flyer program, however, a brief Google search only reveals sources that mostly talk about how customers can earn points with the program. A lot of travel-related businesses seem to participate in the program, but I'm not sure if notability is established here in the lack of better sources. Regardless, the article does need to be improved so that it is more encyclopedic. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as lack of context makes this look like a PR exercise that fails WP:SPAM. Like the article Air Miles, the article does not disclose what the value of Asia Miles are and why people should collect them, which is precisely what the promoters don't want you to know. --Gavin Collins 14:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep program is huge in Asia. What does it matter if you don't know what the promoters are using the points for?? That has nothing to do with the article. --Thankyoubaby 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It matters not if the program is huge or not, AAdvantage is a MASSIVE FFP, yet it is inline on the main American Airlines article, as are all other MASSIVE FFP of US and European and other airlines, with a few exceptions. There are no reliable, non-trivial sources provided in the article which would provide Asia Miles notability within the context of an encyclopaedia, and none which can be found or have been provided to establish any degree of notability. --Russavia 02:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 16:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - this is a clear case for CSD G11. Nihiltres(t.l) 16:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Swiss vacation
Largely original research with no references, I'm not convinced this can be made into a viable article. Marasmusine 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment What were you thinking. you should have speedied it--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Under what criteria? Marasmusine 14:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment What were you thinking. you should have speedied it--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Deor 13:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Nonsense, unencyclopediodic, copies material from other articles, Weasel words, peackock terms, NPOV, Inaccurate, no references, non-notable, spam, fails to establish context, not a travel guide, badly written etc.--Phoenix 15 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I forgot to mention Original research--Phoenix 15 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Deor sirmob 14:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just send me a postcard I agree, this is a speedy delete. Mandsford 15:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Time and Time Again
Fails notability criteria and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Seraphim Whipp 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect - If all notable information about the single "Time and Time Again" is located on the lovehatetragedy article, there is no need for the "Time and Time Again" article to exist to duplicate the information. Users will, however, search for the single without knowing the name of the album, therefore Time and Time Again should redirect to lovehatetragedy. Neelix 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Completely agree, redirect. Seraphim Whipp 08:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] She Loves Me Not (song)
Fails notability criteria. Due to an easy merge it now offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Has charted in several countries. As for the content being redundant with that of the album article, that could (conceivably) be fixed. It doesn't mean the song is any less notable.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note. You might want to mention in the article that it's being nominated for deletion. This template is handy for this purpose. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Lol, I see you did that already, but some clown had removed it. It's been restored.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Chart position could be easily added to the album article though... I'm not sure there really is enough information about this particular song to make it stand up on its own. Even if we could find a paragraph to write about it, that info would work quite well in an album article. Seraphim Whipp 23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Lol, I see you did that already, but some clown had removed it. It's been restored.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Nationally charted song (#76 on the Billboard 100)[28] so passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolvetalk 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Passes WP:MUSIC. Maxamegalon2000 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Well no it doesn't really. Also, simply because it charted, doesn't mean we need to have an article about it. Information such as "This song charted and reached position _" can be added to the album article with ease.
- The conditions from WP:MUSIC are these *:
- ...has been covered in sufficient independent works. Fail
- ...has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fail
- ...has been ranked on a national or significant music chart. Pass
- ...has been recognized by journalists, biographers, and/or other respected cultural critics as being significant to a noteworthy group's repertoire. Fail
- ...has won a significant award or honor. Fail
*(I hope no one objects to me adding this info. I know page dumping isn't great but I figured this was a proportionately small amount of text and was needed for clarity in my argument. A simple page link wouldn't really have done it)
- Seraphim Whipp 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment on Comment. and the first line was: "A song is probably notable if it meets one or more of the following standards". Meaning it was probably enough to pass on one of the criteria... BTW, I'm neutral.Greswik 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep Has been charted in rock charts, and also although that does not seem to be very much a factor here, but the song was used for NHL 2003.--JForget 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- General comment. This stuff can all so easily be added to the album article. I just don't see why this needs it's own song article. Can anyone give me a reason why the info suggested should not be added to the main album article? I'm sincerely not asking that to be rude, I simply can't understand. Seraphim Whipp 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Broken Home (song)
Fails notability criteria and offers no more information than the main article, essentially making it a redundant content fork. Seraphim Whipp 11:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Nationally charted song[29] so passes WP:MUSIC#Songs. dissolvetalk 01:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. It may have charted and therefore it passes on one criteria of notability but that piece of one line information (that it charted) can easily be added to the album article. It's basically an empty article and it really doesn't have much of a chance of being much more. Album articles are used to write about this stuff. Seraphim Whipp 10:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Dissolve--JForget 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Notable single by a notable band that charted. Of course it meets the notability criteria; it charted on a national chart. Articles on singles aren't "redundant content forks", or you could merge all articles on singles into their respective albums. They provide different information. Melsaran (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete non admin, {{db-afd}} tagged. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jared Murillo
Procedural - prod removed, no real assertion of notability The Rambling Man 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete May be notable in a few years if he keeps this up, but not quite yet. Accounting4Taste 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find any reliable sources discussing his career; the only sources I'm finding seem to discuss him purely in the context of his dating a notable person, and describe him as a 'back-up dancer'. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, getting there, but not quite notable yet. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think his notability is due to music, so that's not a very good way to look at it. Everyking 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It should not be deleted he was a cheoregrapher for the High School Musical Concert and High School Musical 2. He also was just signed by Warner Brothers for a boy band called the Factory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.238.17 (talk • contribs) — User:67.182.238.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. He has some notability as a dancer (see here) and for minor roles on TV, but he's mostly notable for dating Ashley Tisdale, for which he has been getting some attention (for example, here). I think the sources exist to establish a minimal level of notability. Everyking 09:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- Jared should be noted as a dancer for High School Musical: The Concert, and as well as for dating Ashley Tisdale. If he does become famous, I think we should keep the article, but modify it to actually look like a profile. Calebaldwinjun9 17:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per FisherQueen. Luckystars 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Jared Murillo should be noted for his dancing. He seems to have won a lot of Dance competitions. User:Kula007 16, September 2007 — User:Kula007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete: he's covered by lots of sources, but they all appear to be small sources that don't appear independent or necessarily reliable. Nyttend 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- "'Keep"' Murillo is covered by many sources, they are independent and reliable. Just read them. User:Dreamgirl1 Dreamgirl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamgirl1 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Areas in the Ratchet & Clank series
Completely unsourced article which seems to me to belong in a game guide. This level of detail is grossly excessive in a general encyclopaedia, not paper notwithstanding, and also appears to be drawn wholly from primary sources, violating WP:NOR. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - zero out-of-universe context, no reliable secondary sources, per WP:Writing about fiction. Marasmusine 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A very OR article about a universe that will last only until your PlayStation 2 wears out. Mandsford 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this belongs in the game manual and certainly not in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and definitely not a publisher of original thought. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia needs to grow smaller, less quantity and more of a focus on quality. Marlith T/C 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete indiscriminate collection of information per WP:NOT. No out of universe context per WP:FICTION, and no out of universe context possible either (so delete instead of attempt to improve). Note to closing admin: though they !voted delete as well, User:Marlith and Usert:Mandsford's argument are invalid and irrelevant, and do not support their opinion to delete this article from an objective point of view. User:Krator (t c) 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as above. Fin©™ 10:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted - blatant vanity page and patent nonsense. The only reference is a discussion board thread. No opinion about the person's notability, but the article was unsalvageable. Potential re-creators, please be factual the next time; Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. (Otherwise, go edit Uncyclopedia.) - Mike Rosoft 14:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Damien Jelfs
Obvious hoax article. Birth date is claimed as year 0000, fictional sport positions and other blatant falsehoods such as "The birth of Jelfs is regarded by many to be the coming of God." GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - vanity article, google search supports nominators argument. Marasmusine 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Agree, it's a hoax article. Delete per nom. This one should be easy, prolly even as a speedy per WP:SNOW — Becksguy 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - As a poor attempt at a comedy-hoax article. CIreland 10:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per GlassCobra, Marasmusine, I'd have speedied it as nonsense. Accounting4Taste 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh believe me, I would have loved to, but I learned the hard way that any claim to notability, even a blatantly false one, is grounds for exclusion from CSD. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, obvious hoax.--Grahamec 04:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cristian Guerrero
not notable, fails WP:BIO. Miamite 09:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Only in minor league.--Bedivere 09:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. Smashville 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, this player meets the current standard for athletes in WP:BIO, and it should be noted that he also meets the proposed standards in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by playing for the AAA Columbus and New Orleans teams. Requests have been made that baseball player AfD's be put on hold until the proposed guidelines are worked out. Kinston eagle 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete again I don't see sources, (more than the other two though) that wasn't independent, a stats site, or trivial mentions, also he played six games in AAA, doesn't seem like a whole year to me. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, he has played 10 games at the AAA level between Columbus and New Orleans. He was also a minor league all-star in 1999 and 2000. Kinston eagle 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- 10 games...still not a full season. Smashville 13:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, he has played 10 games at the AAA level between Columbus and New Orleans. He was also a minor league all-star in 1999 and 2000. Kinston eagle 11:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The appearances at AAA were fairly brief. However, as Kinston notes, he has also played on two minor-league All Star teams, which is a reasonable assertion of notability for a minor league player. There are reasonable non-trivial sources on him out there, such as this mention in USA Today, this profile in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, and this article (capsule view only) in the San Bernardino Sun (that's just the first three good examples in 15 pages of results from Google News). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Meets WP:BIO...and by virtue of making Minor League All Star teams, meets proposed Wikipedia:Notability (sports) requirements, too... Smashville 16:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Minor league all-stars are notable. Spanneraol 17:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment . Is there some sort of source to the repeated mantra here that he was a minor league all-star? --Truest blue 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- 2000 Rookie Level All-Star Team (Baseball America) sounds like it isn't really an All-Star Team, instead seems like a All-Star team created by the magazine. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- That one's a judgement call. Personally, I count it, since BA is basically the bible of minor league baseball. The other one is pretty indisputable, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 12:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Suggest revisiting this issue if necessary once the proposed guidelines for sports figures has been settled. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Juan M. Gonzalez (baseball)
not notable, fails WP:BIO. Miamite 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. Smashville 22:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is that a Keep Smashville? Kinston eagle 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. I mean, common sense is that a Minor Leaguer wouldn't be notable. However, per WP:BIO, they are. Smashville 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Is that a Keep Smashville? Kinston eagle 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, this player meets the current standard for athletes in WP:BIO, and it should be noted that he also meets the proposed standards in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) by playing for the AAA Albuquerque Isotopes. Requests have been made that baseball player AfD's be put on hold until the proposed guidelines are worked out. Kinston eagle 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't find one good source that wasn't independent, trvial, or a stats site, fails WP:RS and WP:V and also for notabilty (sports) it's recommended not to use it for any AFD debates, not place the baseball AFDs on hold. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Professional minor league player, has played AAA baseball, meets criteria of WP:BIO and Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Spanneraol 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cade Gaspar
not notable. fails WP:BIO. Miamite 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above.--Miamite 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Miamite--Truest blue 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Never made it to the highest level of the sport. DrunkenSmurf 22:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. How does this fail WP:BIO? The WP:BIO requirement is that a player plays in a fully professional league, which he does. "Highest level of the sport" does not apply here, as Minor League players are not amateurs. Smashville 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets the current criteria of WP:BIO. Kinston eagle 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete minor leaguer who never made it to the big leagues. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - clearly meets WP:BIO. — xDanielx T/C 07:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable. Players who never reach the major leagues can achieve notability through prominence in college baseball (i.e. winning the Golden Spikes Award) or through a sustained minor league career with significant notability (e.g. Steve Dalkowski), but unremarkable minor league careers don't qualify. I'm skeptical of articles for AAA players as well, unless their reaching the majors is rather imminent. MisfitToys 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 File system. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Offline File System
This article is pointless, the concept of "offline file system" should be explained in the file system article or in the mount (computing) article. This page is unlikely to be expanded without duplicating the contents of other articles, and moreover I'm not sure that "offline" is the current terminology (I usually find "unmounted filesystem"). GhePeU 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Like Ropeway technician (another article currently up for deletion), this is a definition of a trivial combination of words. There's nothing here that couldn't be easily discovered by looking up the words offline and file system. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect. To File system. • Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect per above. JIP | Talk 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect better idea. Carlosguitar 01:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 inclusion criteria is present, "cited in many texts and papers", is vague and this is functionally a synthesis of important works listed or discussed in one book. I agree, however, that the foundation for a better list may be here, perhaps for an article entitled notable works in social psychology. I will gladly userify this article to any party interested in solidifying a stronger inclusion criteria and/or using it as a guide to create articles on books that may themselves deserve encyclopedia articles. — Scientizzle 16:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of social psychology classics
List with no criteria for inclusion. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Represents an editor's POV, not supported by independent referencing. WWGB 08:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Listcruft. Keb25 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Neither 'social psychology' nor 'classics' will ever be capable of a sufficiently precise or neutral definition. CIreland 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A classic example of the social psychology of manipulating a large group of students; define something as a "classic" that everyone must have. Mandsford 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As the list itself notes: "Any list of classics is sure to be subjective". Per WP:LIST it should go then Bfigura (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I've seen better, but there does seem to be criteria: they are specified as listed in a standard reference, and they all of them are obviously major figures with WP articles (or earlier workers about whom an article could clearly be written.). From my limited knowledge of the subject, I think that the individual books would justify WP articles--for the ones I checked, they are mentioned in the articles, and they have certainly been discussed in the literature. I think deletion should be kept for idiosyncratic or overly extended lists of this sort. DGG (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. This is a meaningful list.Biophys 01:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep- no longer a copyvio. WjBscribe 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Webbs Mills Fire Department
Seems to be a copyvio of http://www.rootsweb.com/~srgp/organize/soutaust.htm, but is worded differently so it isn't blatant. --DarkFalls talk 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, with no prejudice against recreation - Better just to start over, but we can recreate this as a non copyvio, surely. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 08:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - rewritten and fixed copy vio so it is now legit. E343ll 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep since rewrite. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chiles Elementary School
Not Notable Builderman 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Consensus is that elementary schools are not inherently notable unless something makes them so. No claim made here, and a quick google search doesn't show notability either. — Becksguy 10:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Just the typical average local elementary school period.--JForget 23:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted by Zscout370 as copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ISOLATE
CSD tag was removed: [30]. I don't think they meet WP:BAND - they have 2 albums, but not under any major labels, and I see no other assertions. Perhaps someone else will... Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As nom. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Case of WP:SPAM as well as a copyvio from their Myspace page. ~Cr∞nium 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Band vanity/spam. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 08:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Myistro
This person is not notable. --Jjamison 06:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable musician. Keb25 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Keb25. "Once the major labels hear him" is not good enough. Accounting4Taste 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: An anon blanked the article. I have restored it. --Jjamison 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per changes made which verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: First nomination here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Rapture (film)
Fails notability guidelines for future films. Girolamo Savonarola 06:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- old nomination
- Delete - Doesn't comply to guidelines and even if it was a present film, I doubt it'd be notable. Spawn Man 08:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NF. Keb25 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NF and redirect to The Rapture (film).Changing vote to Keep. I don't know if the sources in the article have just been added or I was asleep and missed them, but the non-trivial media coverage listed for this production, coupled with the way it is being cast, pushes it into the notability arena.If this article is kept, a DAB statement must be added to it, redirecting people to the earlier, more notable film.I've gone ahead and done what I'd originally suggested in the striked out comment. 23skidoo 11:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)- Delete per Girolamo Savonarola. --Truest blue 17:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Rapture will be a notable film - DOP is Geoff Boyle who has just completed "The Mutant Chronicles", directed by Simon Hunter and starring Thomas Jane, John Malkovich, Devon Aoki, Ron Perlman. Publicity due to its innovative casting methods - recent BBC interview with director Steve Nesbit can be viewed on his MySpace and articles in Total Film, The Sun online as well as News of the World, The Mirror, The London Paper etc! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.146.230 (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I presume, then, that you would recommend that the article be Kept? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - I don't think this article meets Notability - though it may as it nears its release date. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, however - our coverage of future films should be limited, especially when films are this early in the production process. See Also WP:CRYSTAL. That said, The casting process does appear to be notable and innovative. The sources seem to mention the beginning of the process, but not the documentary or the result of the casting. If there's current coverage, I would consider that notable. A novel casting process that was mentioned once months ago and forgotten, however - not so much. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It doesn't meet the notability guideline for future films, but the unusual casting method of taking initial auditions from a website establishes enough notability that this should be kept, even if the film is never made.--Chaser - T 17:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because properly referenced and relevant article for Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Presents a novel idea and will be notable when released Mbisanz 01:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
[edit] Bob and George
The result was Speedy keep. With the grounds for nomination withdrawn as inaccurate, there's no more reason to hold an AfD about this article than about any other article on the encyclopedia. Amusingly enough, the grounds for a speedy keep decision specifically include a procedural PROD where the nominator votes "keep." Non-admin closure; if wrong, slap with large, hairy fish. --Kizor 11:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale "non-notable webcomic". References are indeed minimal but the article has been on Wikipedia for years and I doubt it would have seen that much action unless it did have a following. Pascal.Tesson 06:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Extra comment It now appears that this is not an expired prod. Rather, the prod tag was put up, taken down and revert-warred over. In any case, looking back at the two previous AfD, I'm definitely learning towards Keep. Pascal.Tesson 06:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep noticable for its role in the development of a genre/artform. Article is well written. --Martin Wisse 11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pubs of Newtown
Procedural nom. Very similar to one I nominated a minute ago. This is an expired prod. Pascal.Tesson 06:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP isnt a travel guide. Mystache 13:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Mystache. Keb25 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Newtown, New South Wales. Certainly, the Sandringham Hotel, Newtown has played a notable part in Sydney's music scene with at least one song being written about it. Capitalistroadster 02:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article is not written in either directory or travel guide style and discusses the pubs in Newtown in the context of their architectural and historical significance and as a (the?) key part of the cultural and social life of the neighborhood. The subject is clearly notable and merging to Newtown, New South Wales would make that already large article more unwieldly. The article needs sourcing but by itself that is not a reason to delete. Tag it as unreferenced and move on although given the recent history of these articles I sense I am fighting an uphill battle. I remain puzzled about what is put in the Yellow Pages in other parts of the world but directory listings and travel guides in Australia usually include information such as addresses and phone numbers that are not in this article. Also, I doubt that there is a great deal of understanding of the central place and historical significance of pubs in Australian culture especially in inner city neighbourhoods such as Newtown. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unreferenced article giving no context beyond 'companies of a particular type in a specific area' (guide/directory) with links to external sites included in the text. Nuttah68 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The article may be unreferenced but it does provide more context than a mere listing of businesses in the area. Many of the buildings are architecturally significant and the pubs, especially in that particular neighbourhood are of historical, cultural and social significance. Any fair reading of the article can see that is more than a list of ,let's say, dry cleaners in Newtown but an attempt (albeit one that needs work) to write about a significant part of of the social fabric of Newtown. While I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument, I still find it puzzling in the extreme that this article is written off as a mere directory while every mini mall is somehow entitled to an article that is barely more than a list of tenants. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this is nothing but original research, and I seem to recall a policy against that. Each of the references are about individual examples of pubs - there is not a single reference discussing any overall themes about the pubs of Newtown as distinct from any other pubs in Australia. Just because it's verifiable doesn't make it suitable for an article. (yes, I've said all this before.)23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs)
-
- Comment Yes, its a bit like Groundhog Day but I'll keep trying. :-) -- Mattinbgn\ talk 01:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of pubs in Rozelle
Procedural nomination: expired prod but though these sorts of lists usually end up deleted, the AfD debates are rarely uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 07:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP isnt a travel guide. Mystache 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't the yellow pages and this is a directory. Useight 15:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unlike the Pubs in Newtown article, there is no content worth merging. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Mere listing of pubs in the neighbourhood without any context. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Contextless directory listings. Nuttah68 16:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per pubs of Surry Hills and Newtown articles just now.Garrie 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. JIP | Talk 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jane Pilley
Insufficient context for an article, also not really notable but for the news article on the sex change(s), and notability is not temporary. Recommend deletion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Sex changes are old hat, and even prisoner sex changes (funded by the state!) are old hat. The only notability here is having a sex change reversal but even that is not particularly notable. If this case involves a change to UK law or some other effect it could have some notability but as is, no. Comment: generally the phrase "notability is not temporary" means that if someone is notable at some point that does not go away and they may have an article as an historically notable person (say, a minor figure in the Watergate scandal). You seem to be using it to say that "temporary news coverage is not notability", but best say that directly. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This artical doesnt seem to be notable enough or expand beyond a stub.(ForeverDEAD 12:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
-
- If you read the article, Jane's problem is going to be expanding beyond a stub too. Nick mallory 14:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - not notable but interesting point raised by Dhartung E343ll 16:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep if expanded--it asserts being the first prisoner (presumably meaning the first in the UK?) to have a sex change, so there is undoubtedly some discussion of that. Even the 2 refs give some information to be used in expansion. There is no policy that stubs get deleted. DGG (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Call Me Lightning
This was a speedy deletion candidate which was contested by its author. The article claims that the notability of the band is 2 releases on notable indie labels. To be perfectly honest, this is borderline db-band but it's also almost speedy deletable as no content/context. The article is a a sentence (plus a second sentence to explain they're notable by quoting WP:CSD), an infobox, and the list of the 2 CDs. Metros 05:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Author Keep Meets Criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC by the discography alone, and I don't see why I have to add anything else to keep it from being speedied. Nevertheless, I added three reviews by top-flight press agencies. If you want more, I'll go find them. Chubbles 05:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's not really more reviews, but more content at this point. As pointed out in the nom, most of your article is quoting Wikipedia policy rather than describing the band. Speedy Delete under CSD A1 unless expanded to not qualify for that criteria. Band appears to meet notability by the rationale included in the article text, which needs to be removed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's a stub. I don't know a lot about the band, but I can't see it possibly qualifying under A1 at this point. Chubbles 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like it meets Criteria 1 and 5 of WP:MUSIC. Even if not, certainly not a speedy candidate. Maxamegalon2000 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep meets criteria 1 and 5 of WP:MUSIC, well referenced with numerous independent reviews. Royalbroil 03:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A no-brainer: one album on Revelation and another on Frenchkiss. Easily meets WP:BAND. Precious Roy 09:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted - substantially identical article to Hopkins Junior High School under the wrong name; has been blanked by creator. No opinion about the school's notability; if desired, the other article may be nominated for deletion as well. - Mike Rosoft 20:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hopkins (williams) Jr. High School
Duplicate of existing Hopkins Junior High School article. Magnet for vandalism, only 2 editors and no serious edits. Wl219 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. the Hopkins Junior High School article is way better written, and should serve the purpose. --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete The creator (and only contributor of content) stated that he did not want the article. He appears to have missed the fact that the other article existed. Just check his contribs and the article history. --Jjamison 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 05:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tkachev AO-46
Obscure prototype firearm article created by sock puppet and spammer Asams10 05:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, or at least postpone discussion. The article did, before I removed it, have a "more info soon" notice, which we should give the chance for the author to make good on before we delete this. The user's contributions, while not exactly top-quality, do appear to be made mostly in good faith. Let's assume that and give him a chance to expand and establish the notability, as he has said he will. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Changed to weak keep after reviewing some more contributions including one copyvio article and another which I nominated for deletion above. A little less willing to AGF now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment/Question: What edits are you referring to as spam, by the way? Could you also provide some assistance with the sockpuppet claims? Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG DELETE - This AFD is in conjunction with reporting sock puppetry. This user is a suspected sock puppet of User:Jetwave Dave who was banned for sock puppetry and abuse of other editors. His edits and articles, this one included, consist of reading obscure English and Russion journals, copying text and pictures, and posting them to this and dozens of other sites, forums, etc. Further, GOOGLE yields two results, both appearing to be by the same contributor and this Wikipedia article is just a paraphrase of that article. If anything, this is copyvio at best, a hoax at worst.--Asams10 06:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment spam may not be technically correct. It is more like mass insertion of nn unverifiable cruft, neologisms he made up, silly redirects, and copyvio. Leibniz 12:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of WP:V. Fancruft does not make WP:RS. Leibniz 12:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There's a general prejudice in Wikipedia against well-written articles about firearms, and it's because of crap like this. Mandsford 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I've added a credible reference for the gun- not sure whether it is notable though.Nigel Ish 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just becouse i vandalised a user before, it doesnt mean im going to vandalise again. Apart from that, i guess this page is being deleted just becouse i created it. User:Winky Bill, 21:30PM, 9/09/07 (UTC)
- Comment I love reverse psychology, but I don't think anybody's decision on voting to keep or delete will be based on anything but how they feel about the article itself. Mandsford 21:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and comment I think we should delete this page currently and then when this can be really expanded by allot of information someone recreates it.(ForeverDEAD 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
- Delete Per comments by Asams10 and Leibniz; a lack of RS makes the article unteneble in its current state. If more information can be found, it can always be recreated later. Winky makes claims that he won't vandalize again, but just today, he added my name to the list of former CGs of [[XVIII Airborne Corps {United States}]]. Someone isn't being very subtle, Jetwave. Parsecboy 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The subject is part of the history of Soviet weaponry. This is exactly what should be in an encyclopedia. - Dean Wormer 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- not really. It's an obscure prototype. There are, literally, THOUSANDS of prototypes that are left out, intentionally, of Wikipedia due to their obscurity.--Asams10 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Asams10, though its a part of soviet history its not notable enough and obscure prototype. I could easily go to ordanace museum in Aberdeen and find some odd prototype but i don't because its not near notable enough ForeverDEAD 13:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Clinton Sundberg
Non-notable actor. Also a copyvio of his IMDb entry. Clarityfiend 05:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Copy vio and NN. Of his four film/television credits, 2 are for voice parts, and the other two sound as though they are small parts. So yeah, NN. Spawn Man 08:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blair's Law
This is a phrase coined by the Australian blogger Tim Blair to describe "the phenonemon of far right and far left groups allying with extremist Islamists." I think this should be deleted because it's already covered at Tim Blair's article and it's probably not notable enough for it's own article--certainly there aren't any reliable third-party third-party sources to establish notability right now. As the article itself points out, it's also similar to Horseshoe Theory, which was deleted through AfD. P4k 04:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
There is substantial support for this article amomng the blogging community. As Blair himself points out, it has spread quite substantially in recent times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1986 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely non-notable. Sources are just a bunch of blog posts. Content about this is already at Tim Blair Recurring dreams 06:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Recurring dreams 06:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things posted on a blog one day that other bloggers find witty. This isn't even a law, it's barely an observation, and the article largely exists to link to those other bloggers chuckling. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - the sources are insufficient (a small collection of one-off mentions on blogs, and the Urban Dictionary), and the saying is already mentioned in the parent article Tim Blair. No need for a separate article for an observation as relatively unknown as this. Euryalus 07:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFT, neologism. Keb25 07:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Ceoil 11:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete then do a blog about how unfair it was that it was deleted. Mandsford 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect then post about how unfair it is ;-) Lundse 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Blair's Law does not seem to have much currency so not worth a redirect to Tim Blair. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete without prejudice to re-creation should reliable sources (i.e mainstream media coverage, independent of the "law"'s proponent) be found in the future. Whether or not the "law" has any bearing in fact or otherwise is irrelevant and Mr. Blair is hardly an independent source for his own "law". -- Mattinbgn\ talk 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.--Aldux 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patricia Walker
Non-notable actress who was married to Blake Edwards. Clarityfiend 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Seven film roles and four of them uncredited? She's not an actress, she's an extra/day player. Accounting4Taste 05:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Practically no coverage found in Google Books or News Archive except as spouse/mother. Not a likely search term, so no redirect needed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable actress. Keb25 13:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to the husband's article. Every time there is a situation like that, a merger to the article of the brother, sister, father, mother, husband, wife etc should be the more viable option until the notability is asserted if it is possible.--JForget 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please discuss exactly how to merge on the Talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes
The main article for Calvin and Hobbes has great summaries for all the secondary characters, minus Uncle Max (I'm sure he deserves a little mention in the main article). While this article has some interesting information, a lot of it is restated in the main article. The rest of the text is decently written, its full of speculated connections/intentions and strips restated in text form. Reading over much of the article, it seems people have just added plausible cruft. Granted, maybe a merge would be better to keep some of the more interesting or important facts or quotes, but I fear if we move too much 'stuff' over to the Calvin and Hobbes page it might actually detract from the quality that article has achieved Ageofe 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It at least might be merged with the Calvin and Hobbes article. --Amaraiel 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, there was an 'edit conflict'. Not sure what to do there so I just added the above section of what I was originally going to post Ageofe 04:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge: But I am not sure which way. Either the section in Calvin and Hobbes needs to be merged into this article and a link left behind, or Secondary characters in Calvin and Hobbes needs to be merged into the first. Either way, this article appears to have far more trivia than needed, and yet more real content, than in the main article. --Jjamison 04:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge It's a good article, but the "secondary characters" are actually all the others in Calvin's world besides Hobbes. Either merge with Calvin and Hobbes or combine this with any "character" articles that may have been written about Calvin or about Hobbes. Mandsford 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge & Redirect - With the main Calvin and Hobbes article. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and prune. Failing that, make a new Characters in Calvin and Hobbes article and merge the character text from Calvin Hobbes with some (but not all) of this.--Mike Selinker 04:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge Into article on all C&H charactersMbisanz 01:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crass commercialism
The negative connotations of commercialism are already covered at that title. This title is inherently POV. Alksub 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. WP is not a place for adverbial phrases (although I do agree with the articles sentiment). -- Alan Liefting talk 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's unsourced and not only is the title POV, its the whole article. Besides that, the see also section is just a listing of things a few editors think are worthless. Ageofe 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox and inclusion in this category would be 100% POV and original research. Plus, no sources. Accounting4Taste 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. Keb25 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. wp:pov, wp:crap. Mystache 14:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is actually someone's list of what they consider to be crass commercialism (9/11 TV Specials, Emo Bands, Fast Food, Hollywood, MTV, Nu Metal, Pop music, Sprite Remix). It's a holdover from 2002, when Wikipedia was so hard up it would keep ANYTHING. Mandsford 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Global Warming Awareness month
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting talk 04:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There's nothing to this one. Someone decided to advocate a postition. MarkBul 04:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Obvious promotion. The author created three such articles with similar content; two of them were speedily deleted. -- intgr [talk] 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable event. Keb25 13:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete So someone in California PROPOSED this? Not that global warming isn't important, but wait until Arnold proclaims a global warming month, then write an article. Mandsford 15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete At best, it's WP:CRYSTAL. At worst, it's WP:POV.--WaltCip 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Carlosguitar 23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not quite ready for an article, at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with the global warming or other related article. I think the event should be worth mention to a main article rather then an individual article. Of course, the promotion should be dumped, though.--JForget 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 under WP:CSD#G5 by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 07:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The "Elite" Hills
This page is nothing more than original research, and its only references come from other Wikipedia pages. AniMate 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted - recreation of deleted The Elite Hills by banned edited user:Ericsaindon2. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 via disambig. CitiCat ♫ 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hellbore
Fictional weapon from a series of sci-fi novels. No evidence of notability; I could find no references from any sources outside the novels. Sopoforic 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Bolo (tank). Then redirect to Hellebore (the flower). Kappa 04:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per Kappa Q T C 06:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge into and redirect to Bolo (tank)- Keith Laumer's Bolo series of SF books, and the Bollo, per se, are certainly notable, however I can't see a separate article on the main weapon at this time. Merge into main article with no prejudice against recreation if size issues in the future favor it, or if the gun becomes notable on it's own merits. Some of this article's content overlaps with the hellbore description in the main article, so merging will require some editing, prolly best in a new section.. — Becksguy 11:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)- Merge Okay, it didn't bore the hell out of me, but it does belong back with either Laumer or the Bolo series. Mandsford 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Good one. That was funny! — Becksguy 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Know how I found out it was being deleted? I was reading one of the novels and found myself wanting to know what a Hellbore was, so I went to Wikipedia to find out. I found the comment that nobody would want to do that comical. Syberghost 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Which comment that nobody would want to look up what a Hellbore is? It's certainly possible; however, all of the information in the article came from the novels you're reading. We require evidence of notability to justify a separate article on a topic. The information won't be lost--it's also contained, as noted by Becksguy, in the main Bolo article. --Sopoforic 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but suggest that this article become a disambiguation page treferring people to both the Bolo fictions, and to hellebore, a notorious plant formerly used in medicine, which was my first thought as to what this might be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment I like the idea of this page becoming a multi disambig page as Smerdis of Tlön suggests. That makes a lot of sense and also addresses Kappa's concern. — Becksguy 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per WP:COPYVIO The section on How a Hellbore works is a word for word copy of the Hellbore content from pages 269-270 of Bolo Brigade, by William H. Keith, Jr. The source is even mentioned at the end of the article. I personally checked the book's text. Blatant copyright violation per WP:COPYVIO. After deletion, create disambig page per above. Thanks. — Becksguy 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I blanked the copyvio section, per WP:COPYVIO. — Becksguy 20:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If nobody re-writes that section non-copyvio, I withdraw my "Keep" vote and change it to "Delete" - Syberghost 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete Not notable Mbisanz 01:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability appears to exist, though cleanup may be needed.--Kubigula (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Columbia University tunnels
Contested prod. Plenty of original research; the few statements that are sourced come from unreliable sources (personal websites.) Also fails notability; no reason to believe that these tunnels are more notable than any other university tunnels. Chardish 03:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Actually, upon reading the article, they do seem more interesting than any old university tunnels. Finding good sources for these sorts of things is hard. SolidPlaid 03:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to who? You can't just subjectively declare something to be "more interesting" - we have objective standards to determine what is interesting and what isn't. I agree that finding good sources for these sorts of things is hard. No information is better than unreliable information, though. And sorry for the link overload : ) - Chardish 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, a student used them to steal uranium? Students used them in the 60s to wiretap the university phone system? Some tunnels were originally for an insane asylum? Sourced, these each could be nominated for a DYK entry. SolidPlaid 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- According to who? You can't just subjectively declare something to be "more interesting" - we have objective standards to determine what is interesting and what isn't. I agree that finding good sources for these sorts of things is hard. No information is better than unreliable information, though. And sorry for the link overload : ) - Chardish 03:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fascinating, but unnotable (many universities have tunnel "systems" of varied complexity). Most of the article fails WP:V flat. --Dhartung | Talk 03:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - and put verifiable information in the main Columbia University article. Some of the claims made in this article are indeed interesting if true, but we should be writing articles after we have sources, not before.--Danaman5 03:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Very much a part of Columbia's history, especially during the riots. Sure, other schools have similar tunnels, but do they have a tradition of students going into them and mapping them like at Columbia? Notable for historical and architectural reasons. Wl219 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, usually they do have traditions of students going into them and mapping them. It's just that there are no reliable sources for many of these tunnel systems, Columbia's included. Wikipedia does not allow original research, including primary sources such as this one. - Chardish 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable original research. There are people who explore underground urban environments - their interest doesn't support notability. MarkBul 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment It is a restatement of WP:INTERESTING. Notability comes from publication in independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Merge with Columbia University, with verifable facts only used. Very interesting, but isn't worth to be a single article. --Hirohisat Kiwi 05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have found a some sources from Wired and Ivy League School History. There are also other that I havn't had time to go through yet - [31][32][33][34][35] - Fosnez 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article mostly consists of non-notable trivia;
delete orredirect to Columbia University. Some of the material might be worth merging into the main article, in the form of a couple sentences. - Mike Rosoft 08:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)- On the second thought, I recommend the article to be redirected to Columbia University (not deleted outright), to allow salvageable material to be merged into the main article (as long as good references can be found). - Mike Rosoft 14:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'd also like to point out that the article is already being used as a reference and the article's history section seems quite important/notable. - Fosnez 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah; the map (which seems to be a a case of original research anyway) has been uploaded to what looks like a blog as "the most accurate map of the tunnels they could find". Much less persuading when phrased like this. - Mike Rosoft 08:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Columbia's tunnels are more notable than a typical school's due to their vastness, connections to almost every building on campus, and history. Note Edison's reference below, which called them the most famous and perhaps the largest in the entire country. Here's another source detailing some of their fame: The New Yorker wrote a piece about the cyclotron built in secret in the tunnels, which is where the Manhattan Project first split the atom [online excerpt]. The argument for deletion seems to be that there are too many unsourced claims, but rather than delete the entire article, i think we should list the unsourced claims in the talk page, attempt to find reliable sources for them, and remove the claims where this cannot be done. I believe a substantial percentage of the article would survive such a culling. --Mike Schiraldi 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep My first inclination was to say that lots of universities have heating tunnels, but these have some additional notability. Sourcing ought to be found, however, especially since this one wasn't "nominated at birth". Mandsford 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The articles in Wired and New Yorker technically satisfy WP:N's requirement of substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Also see "New York Underground" by Julia Solis, [36] pp 168-170:"Columbia's tunnel system is said to be the largest of any university in America, and is probably the most famous." This source also says the tunnels played an important role in the Manhattan Project. There is nothing "inherently non-notable" about an extensive and historic tunnel system connecting the buildings of a prominent university. If anything, it could be merged to an article about the university rather than deleting such well-sourced material. Any unsourced statements can be deleted. That's what we call "editing." Edison 21:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep articles provided as sources provide the substantial coverage that satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability criterion. Alansohn 02:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep lots of historical significance although more sources would be needed.--JForget 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I think there will be additional sourcing. Because of the exceptionally compact nature of the columbia campus compared to other major universities, these have a particular importance and, obviously, attraction to the students with is reflected in the material available. DGG (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Even if the notability issue is satisfied (and, as the nominator, I feel it has been), there are still serious original research issues here, including the map (of unknown accuracy), and many of the specific locations of the tunnels. Anything that can't be sourced should be removed from the article; if there's not enough remaining to constitute a full article, it should be merged. - Chardish 22:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The link you provided to WP:NOR has a section of bullet points with the heading, "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following..." Which of these items do you feel the map violates? --Mike Schiraldi 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't really violate any of those bullet points, yet those points are not the exclusive definition of original research. According to the first line of the policy: Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories...the map is a large collection of unpublished facts (and theories, particularly the "rumored" tunnels.) I would agree that there are some categories of information that are trivially verified and do not require sources, but I do not think that "the locations of secret underground tunnels which are not officially acknowledged by their builders" is such a category. - Chardish 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The link you provided to WP:NOR has a section of bullet points with the heading, "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following..." Which of these items do you feel the map violates? --Mike Schiraldi 00:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Sure, some problems, but notable (we have plenty of articles on individual Columbia buildings) and sourceable. Sdedeo (tips) 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Probably a speedy candidate per WP:CSD#A7. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Irish Inroads
This "famous" and now disbanded band has, as its only claim to notability, that it was fronted by a "famous" tin whistler whose page has also been tagged for notability since March 2007. SolidPlaid 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and Delete Kevin Myles. Quit music at 18 - not likely to be notable in that case. MarkBul 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lord Of War mixtape
A trivial mixtape; fails WP:N. Contested prod. Alksub 03:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per CSD A7 for failure to assert notability. Failing that, delete per WP:MUSIC. - Chardish 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Chardish, under notability concerns Bfigura (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:Music. Completely non-notable. Accounting4Taste 05:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request; nn neologism. Resolute 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Linkle
WP:NEO, no reliable sources for this opinion piece. Alksub 02:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Could even be a hoax. SolidPlaid 03:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is unsubstantiated with any references and seems like a useless neologism, possibly idiosyncratic. Accounting4Taste 04:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NEO. There are lots of mentions of "Linkle" but the first few pages on web and scholar searches dont have this def. John Vandenberg 08:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original prodder. Neologism. No reliable sources. Possibly self-promotional based on website where it was supposedly coined 5 days ago and the username of the editor who created the page. --Onorem♠Dil 13:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- After a little talking to about what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, author has requested deletion. [37] I've tagged as such for speedy deletion. shoy 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jens Hammer
No signs of notability per WP:PORNBIO, and the sources are too insignificant to confer notability. Alksub 02:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 04:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep GLGerman 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Don't you have to a notable porn star to be listed in the IMDb at all? Jindřichův Smith 20:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep it's porn related but notable regardless. Benjiboi 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep More than 17,000 Google results and 17 Google Scholar results. The subject is notable. Augurr 15:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Epoch (DC Comics).--Kubigula (talk) 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Timepoint
Name of a prison for timetravelers in an obscure DC comics series, no claim to notability. SolidPlaid 02:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with some part of the DC Universe (not an exper so i don't know where it would go) but deletion should never be the first thing we do. Fosnez 06:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "The Timepoint is a prison for time traveling superheroes in the DC Universe. Epoch creates the timepoint in order to stop others from creating time fluctuations, in order to rule all of time." Really? Thank you. Now run along. Mandsford 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Epoch (DC Comics). If it's the character's not terribly notable toy, put it in the character' article. Horrorshowj 10:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm ok with the information being placed on the character's page, but I find it hard to believe that the word "timepoint" is used most often in the comics context. Therefore it should be deleted without redirect. Timepoint should redirect to time. SolidPlaid 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you ever actually heard Timepoint used with relation to time? Term doesn't appear anywhere in Time and it is a proper name. Therefore should be Epoch redirectHorrorshowj 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I have heard it used that way. A search within Wikipedia shows the first few to be about Timepoint the fictional place, but then a bunch of usage in technical articles. True, they are not capitalized, but they outnumber the comics meaning 14 to 8. In particular, articles on streetcars seem to use the term, and we know streetcars are older than the fictional coining. SolidPlaid 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Good points, I stand corrected on the usage. From a WP standpoint, may be easier to keep the redirect to Epoch as there are several incoming links to this article. Although it's not a huge expenditure of effort to fix if redirect does go to Time. Horrorshowj 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I have heard it used that way. A search within Wikipedia shows the first few to be about Timepoint the fictional place, but then a bunch of usage in technical articles. True, they are not capitalized, but they outnumber the comics meaning 14 to 8. In particular, articles on streetcars seem to use the term, and we know streetcars are older than the fictional coining. SolidPlaid 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you ever actually heard Timepoint used with relation to time? Term doesn't appear anywhere in Time and it is a proper name. Therefore should be Epoch redirectHorrorshowj 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm ok with the information being placed on the character's page, but I find it hard to believe that the word "timepoint" is used most often in the comics context. Therefore it should be deleted without redirect. Timepoint should redirect to time. SolidPlaid 22:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge – this has very little potential for expansion and is probably not independently notable; the single line that this article consists of can be merged into DC Universe or Epoch (DC Comics). Melsaran (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/merge/redirect Take your pick. we have two sentences that could live happily in another article, or be excluded all together as being a very minor element of this fiction. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Epoch, per above. If the use of Timepoint is at issue, then we could redirect Timepoint to Time (disambiguation), then reference this Timepoint as an element of the DC Comics Character Epoch (or whomever). Internal links would be pointed directly at Epoch - there can't be that many, can there? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- merge' per above to Epoch Mbisanz 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] David Clark (District Attorney)
Campaign literature for the DA named. Full of superlatives and outrageous claims for the alleged great work he does. No reason given for notability. SolidPlaid 02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. I cleaned up some of the POV statements, but I don't think it passes WP:N Bfigura (talk) 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The only thing, that´s missing is a "you can vote for him here"-box. Not only WP:N but WP:SPAM too. --Thw1309 14:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know if there's a policy called WP:ASSKISSING but if this worshipful article isn't an advertisement, it would probably fit. Mandsford 15:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - article fixed. E343ll 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- "In the 2003 election, he ran unopposed. He received 100.0% of the vote." Duh, how much did the other candidate get? Mandsford 18:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, how did I miss that gem of logic. Anyway, I reworded it slightly, although I'm still not convinced that he meets WP:N. --Bfigura (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth Normally, I don't care about politics in Madison and Rankin County, Mississippi, but I had to learn more. You forgot to mention that your hero lost the August 9, 2007 election by a landslide to another lawyer named Michael Guest. Doesn't anybody there use Wikipedia? Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey.... Mandsford 22:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC) - Keep as WP:N even if WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I cleaned up the spam. Bearian 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I still don't see how he is notable. Small town mayors have been found to be non-notable. SolidPlaid 06:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- "this" is a category of district attornies, but nearly all the guys in the category went on to bigger elected positions, or, like Mike Nifong, are in the news a lot. SolidPlaid 22:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The existence of a category does not mean that the criteria establishes notability. If it was, we would all be notable because of inclusion in Category:Living people or the various other categories we would fit in. When I check a few articles in the category, I get people such as Robert J. Gamble & George Gekas who are clearly notable for other reasons. -- JamesTeterenko 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I do not see how being a district attorney by itself is notable. I might be convinced otherwise, but such an argument has not yet be presented. -- JamesTeterenko 07:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Team secondary school
Spammy ad page for non-notable private remedial school in Canada that might have opened its doors this school year. SolidPlaid 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability isn't asserted. Can't really get much information from the article or school, even when following some of the blue links. --Sigma 7 06:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like some promotion and doesn't have any notability really.--JForget 23:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Twenty Years 08:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per failure to verify notability. VanTucky Talk 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Close call, but Trident13 and Crazysuit make compelling arguments under WP:BIO. Very minor notability, but nobody appears to dispute wide name recognition.--Kubigula (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nadine Baggott
I believe that the article fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject.
Ms Baggott's principle "achievement" to date seems to have been a single award, in 2004, for thinking up a clever title for an edition of the british magazine Hello. The title was recognised by the jasmine awards, which seems to be specifically aimed at that subset of the advertising and marketing industry that writes about perfumes. This seems to be a small prize in a little pond!
Additionally, the article has dubious or unverifiable sources both for the age and birthplace of the subject, and contains other unverified information. I believe that if this information were removed, it would almost collapse into a list of links. Furthermore, the article frequently attracts vandalism. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I do not believe that NB meets any of the general notability criteria for people listed at WP:BIO with the possible exception of wide name recognition through stating her name during her appearance in TV adverts.
If I tell enough people my name enough times am I famous?
I also feel that NB does not meet any of the specific criteria for either television personalities or journalists. She has won a single award in what seems to be a very narrow field - namely "journalism about perfume". Moreover, the award appears to have been for the title of an article, rather than the article itself. I don't feel this single award is significant recognition of her work by her peers.
If I think up a snazzy advertising slogan, is that notable?
In summary, despite the rejection of my request for speedy deletion on the basis that she is "a notable person", I still contend that she is not in fact notable. The most notable thing about her is probably the amount of money expended by Olay to various TV companies in pushing her onto UK TV screens. DMcMPO11AAUK 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources. She has some name recognition, but the award is minor, and her position a notch below generally accepted levels of notability (e.g. the editor of a magazine, not an editor). --Dhartung | Talk 03:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: The article could also be seen as a 'vanity' article, possibly even written by NB herself.
At times the article has been amended by people to show the general thoughts about her tv adverts. Some of these amendments were bound to be less than flattering but some were truthful. These seem to have mysteriously disapeared.
If you are lucky enough to have a listing on here it should speak the truth...warts and all.
For example see the 'Vanessa' page. 84.68.50.143 09:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I'm unsure of the position of the above anonymous contributor, I've engineered his attribution from the edit history to clarify that it's not my comments, although it was inserted in the midst of them. DMcMPO11AAUK 23:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment:(Im sorry that I edited your comments. This is the first time I have contributed to a page like this and was not aware my comments had to be separate to those of others. I thought it was ok to edit just the same as a normal page) HjDary.
-
- Keep. Several of the reasons given aren't enough for deletion, vandalism and unreferenced information is an editing issue. The suggestion that the article is "probably written by NB herself" is just silly. The article creator User:Trident13 is an editor with nearly 20,000 edits and is obviously not the subject. She hasn't really "done" anything to deserve her fame, but the TV adverts alone have made her one of the most well-known names (as opposed to people) in the UK, so she passes the WP:N standard for wide name recognition. Crazysuit 02:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: From WP:N - "This page in a nutshell: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I would suggest that there are only three reliable secondary sources, an article in The Guardian that was critical of the current Olay advertising campaign, the Jasmine Awards website recording the 2004 soundbite "Scent to Seduce" award, and the IMDB entry. I don't consider the sum of those three sites to be significant coverage. I can't find any other source for material about Nadine that is both (a) independent of her or her employment and (b) reliable. I agree that she has widespread name recognition from the Olay advertising campaign, but is that enough to justify an article? DMcMPO11AAUK 08:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I don't consider websites quoting Baggott's endorsement of various creams, potions, lotions and treatments to be reliable secondary sources either. It's just one advertisement quoting another one. They're not quoting her because they respect her authority on the subject, they're quoting her because her comments support their sales campaign! DMcMPO11AAUK 08:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The claimed notability seems not to be the absurdly minor award, but the controversy over her appearance in some advertisements that have attracted unfavorable comment in the blogosphere. I don't consider that encyclopedic notability. DGG (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There's a lot more notability than this - she's appeared on UK TV shows a few times such as "This Morning" also, and that's besides being in a few adverts. If this article is deleted, perhaps the other more minor articles people fight to keep can be thrown on the scrapheap also. LuciferMorgan 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Her general notability is based on (a) journalistic articles, which have won her (b) one minor award in a small field, (c) occasional appearances as a television presenter, and (d) TV adverts and other product endorsements. She has some additional internet notability through the commentary that the adverts have attracted in the blogosphere. Bottom line - she is just a journalist who happens to write and talk about beauty products and treatments. Oops, I thought I signed this, deriving the correct sig from page history - DMcMPO11AAUK 16:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I originated the article, and I'd like to say now I'm NOT Nadine Baggott - I can't speak about some of the Anon's though who have "added" comments. I originally added an article because much as though I don't think she's the most wonderful or entertaining person in the world, a bit of investigation to me showed that she did pass WP:BIO on at least two counts: The person has demonstrable wide name recognition; Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products. I also don't particularly like editors "grooming" articles for deletion - before making your mind up on this one, have a look at the edit history. I will also add one more point - original version of the article has more references and seems closer to a better/more encyclopedic article: perhaps one of those unique articles which has deteriorated through co-operation; or just a refelction on her public view? Rgds, - Trident13 20:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I'm not grooming anything for deletion. I've reverted vandalism on several occasions, removed inaccuracies both in the original article text (for example birthplace is not orpington, despite the reference which was a blogosphere discussion where someone asked "did she come from orpington?") (she states she was born in Isleworth); and that seem to have been added later (e.g. the assertion that she owns cats - she states that she doesn't). I've added a bio infobox in which I've placed only that information that is verifiably accurate, and I've endeavoured to ensure that all material on the page is from verifiable sources. The only verifiable information that I've removed is that she has done a commercial tv presenters course - I don't think it's appropriate in a bio to list short vocational courses that the subject has attended. I've discussed just about all of this on the article's talk page as I've done it. And I've done it because although I believe that the article should be deleted, I also believe that if the AfD fails, the article is now better laid out and more accurate than before I started on it. DMcMPO11AAUK 01:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: What "demonstrably notable products" does she endorse? As far as I can tell her endorsements are of a few face creams, potions, lotions and beauty treatments. I don't believe any of these products has achieved any particular notability in it's own right. Claiming notability with an argument that "person x is notable because she endorses product y, and product y is notable because it's endorsed by person x" just creates a loop linking person x and product y with the word notable in the middle, it's meaningless. DMcMPO11AAUK 08:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no notability and nothing of significance in article. NBeale 10:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and improve Multiple independent references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Extensive searching has failed to find any additional material, or even references for her date and place of birth - why don't you improve it? DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete Not notable, original author apparently can't expand it. Mbisanz 01:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ropeway technician
A Ropeway technician is a person who maintains ropeways. Dictionary-like entry. Obscure job, but a patently obvious job title. SolidPlaid 02:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Individual technologies do not all need their own job classification entry on Wikipedia. "C programmer"? "Meat grinder cleaner"? These may exist but there is nothing showing they are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Specialised job but not an encyclopedic article. Pavel Vozenilek 04:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The example of a meat grinder cleaner is pretty apt. As with a ropeway technician, I can't figure that one out unless I consult Wikipedia, so maybe there should be an article as informative as this one. Or not. Mandsford 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adam Moyer
Artist's CV page, artist may have promise, but no outside sources claim notability. SolidPlaid 02:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't even find anything to confirm the most extraordinary claim in the article, viz., that Adam Moyer tried to parachute over state capitols. Apparently no one noticed. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no attribution of notability to reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no assertion of notability, not even a single source. I couldn't find any relevant references to his band, which seems to fail WP:BAND, and the only claim that does assert notability (Moyer is perhaps best known for a 2004 letter-writing project in which he wrote a letter to every state governor requesting permission to parachute over each state capitol building) is unsourced and probably a hoax. Melsaran (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 World Universities Debating Championships. This has already been carried out, and so this article will be converted into a redirect to preserve GFDL. Neil ム 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World Universities Debating Ranking
This page is about an entirely unofficial set of rankings for universities at the World Universities Debating Championships. The rankings were compiled by the creator of the World Debating Website, who freely admits that the rankings are completely unofficial at this page. This info is of interest to people who go to the World Debating Website, but it doesn't belong on an international encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Singopo 02:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't a collection of random (possibly unverifiable) stats Bfigura (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I do agree that this ranking is not an official one, but this is the only ranking currently debating arena follows. Its methodology is fare enough and there is no controversy regarding this ranking. If you consider de facto, it values a lot but de jure this is meaningless.
- I took an initiative to organize debate related people from different parts of the world to work together under a wiki project, WikiProject Debating. This project and this ranking was my first step and I hope you would be more tolerant with this type of articles in future. Btw, what do you mean by international encyclopedia? I guess a new definition is waiting for the world :-p . Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Initially I removed the deletion tag from the main article but soon after I changed my mind and decided to go for a debate with you. I have gone through your edits and found you a controversial editor at almost all the pages. I hope you won't mind having a hot debate with me here. Would you please answer me following question?
- Is it necessary for any WP article to be an official one?
- This article is prepared based on official score. Do you think those are not sufficient enough as official source?
- You didn't write a single line on the talk page and straight went for the deletion. May I know why?
- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The ranking clearly is an unofficial one. The World Debate website page clearly states that: "This is an unofficial ranking" (with the word "unofficial" both bolded and underlined on the page). That doesn't mean it has no place in Wikipedia, but it does in my opinion means that it does not merit its own individual page, which implies it has more status than it really does. I have now added this info as a new section on World Universities Debating Championship page, which is where I think it belongs (since that rankings are based only on that competition and not any other). I am in no way questioning the accuracy of the rankings, just whether or not they merit an individual page. I have considerable respect for Colm Flynn and his website, but I think Colm would readily agree that these rankings were simply a personal project of his for which the methodology was not widely discussed or agreed upon, and which were never intended to take on any official status (even if some people have subsequently chosen to view them as such). Perhaps I should have discussed this first (although that's not necessarily an expectation on Wikipedia when we're looking deletion rather than content changes), but that does not change my view that these unofficial rankings should not be given their own individual page. Singopo 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Initially I removed the deletion tag from the main article but soon after I changed my mind and decided to go for a debate with you. I have gone through your edits and found you a controversial editor at almost all the pages. I hope you won't mind having a hot debate with me here. Would you please answer me following question?
- Delete / Merge to World Universities Debating Championship. I agree with Singopo that this info should be on the WUDC page rather than its own separate page. Purple Watermelon 13:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Well, I never called it an official ranking as the page itself describing it as an unofficial one. But its methodology is quite clear and also mentioned on the Colm's page. By the way, I have another question, what do you mean by official? What will be the criteria for any issue to be considered as official? WUDC page is getting larger and WP has a policy to divide 32KB page into different sub-pages. I can't understand why you people are ready to accept this info on the WUDC page but not on a separate page. Purple Watermelon, would you please explain it? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- No way! You are merging this article with a 49KB large article!! I can't believe!!! Please someone make them understand the fact. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The 32KB article size limit is no longer a Wikipedia policy (see: Wikipedia:Article size). Indeed it has not been for quite some time. There is a good deal of content at the WUDC page, but I don't think there's any stylistic or readability problem with that becuase it's neatly broken up into sections, and much of the information is contained in tables. I think the WUDC page is the right page for this info, and I don't see that putting it there causes any problem at all. I think the way Singopo has put it into a new section looks and reads very nicely. Purple Watermelon 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, you want to go with the deletion or a merger? If you (and Singopo as well) prefer a merger then we may stop this debate here and propose a merger. I'll show my arguments against the merger at that new debate. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's not how this works. This discussion is not just between you, me and Singopo. Other people have also come to this page and expressed their opinions, some of whom seem to have firmer views that I do in favour of deleting as opposed to merging (I don't have a strong preference, but I'm strongly opposed to the rankings continuing to have an individual page). Now that this deletion debate is underway, only a Wikipedia admin can legitimately close it (and that usually happens a week after it opens). Purple Watermelon 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- So, you want to go with the deletion or a merger? If you (and Singopo as well) prefer a merger then we may stop this debate here and propose a merger. I'll show my arguments against the merger at that new debate. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 01:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The 32KB article size limit is no longer a Wikipedia policy (see: Wikipedia:Article size). Indeed it has not been for quite some time. There is a good deal of content at the WUDC page, but I don't think there's any stylistic or readability problem with that becuase it's neatly broken up into sections, and much of the information is contained in tables. I think the WUDC page is the right page for this info, and I don't see that putting it there causes any problem at all. I think the way Singopo has put it into a new section looks and reads very nicely. Purple Watermelon 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No way! You are merging this article with a 49KB large article!! I can't believe!!! Please someone make them understand the fact. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I never called it an official ranking as the page itself describing it as an unofficial one. But its methodology is quite clear and also mentioned on the Colm's page. By the way, I have another question, what do you mean by official? What will be the criteria for any issue to be considered as official? WUDC page is getting larger and WP has a policy to divide 32KB page into different sub-pages. I can't understand why you people are ready to accept this info on the WUDC page but not on a separate page. Purple Watermelon, would you please explain it? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete as non-notable. I would consider this merge-worthy if some third-party sources can be found to attest that this ranking, though unofficial, really is followed by the debating teams involved. At the moment, there are no independent sources at all. — mholland (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your argument. Actually this is the only ranking followed by the debating arena. As debating federations are not well organized they usually do not maintain any official registered site but they maintain web-blogs. Can we consider those blogs as third party reference? If so, then I can show you as many supporting references as you want.
- Moreover, Singopo accepted to keep this content on WP as he changed his mind from deletion to a merger. But WUDC article itself is 49KB. Should we put more content on it instead of splitting it into some sub-articles? - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Blogs don't usually meet WP:RS (but do read WP:RS to see if any of the blogs meet the guideline). I'd be more persuaded by a newspaper report about a society or a competition, which mentions this ranking in relation to any of the teams listed. Remember that the primary notability criterion for inclusion is multiple, non-trivial, reliable coverage which is independent of the subject of the article. As for the length of World Universities Debating Championship, the organisation of the material is of secondary importance to getting it referenced and verified. I would have no problem with a 60kB article in the short term. — mholland (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Of course the article is notable. If it's the only ranking recognised and followed by the debating arena then, of course, it is notable. ScarianTalk 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. OK I hope I'm entering my contribution to the discussion in the correct way. My name is Colm Flynn. I'm the creater of the ranking and the founder of the World Debating Website. I'm also a former Chair of the World Debating Council anf DCA of Worlds in the past. I think the ranking is valid. It is unofficial BUT it is the only ranking currently available and is used by a number of institutions when reporting their progress up or down the rankngs to their sponsors (Not everyone can win or break and this ranking is the only other accepted measure of success). This year the WUPID will be held in Kuala Lumpur just before Worlds in Thailand. This tournament is invitation only and the top 30 colleges in the world are being invited to take part. The top 30 are determined by this ranking. As to the argument that this is ranking is only of interest to a small number of people well firstly the World Debating Championships are regarded as the second largest student competition in the world after the World Student Games in athletics. Up to 1200 people take part as competitors, judges or observers every year. Also if every article of interest to less people than that were deleted then Wikipedia would become a very small website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmflynn (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: User:Colmflynn had made only 5 Wikipedia edits prior to this comment.
- Delete. I mean no disrespect to Colm Flynn, who I think had done a superb job of archiving past WUDC results on his website over the past few years. But these rankings are nothing more than a personal initiative of his. They’re not sanctioned by WUDC or the Worlds Council. As much as I admire Colm’s work, these rankings amount to what Wikipedia would consider original research by the creator of a blog website about debating. The methodology used is clear, but is purely Colm’s creation and is open to criticism (I for one think that the fact that the methodology makes no adjustment for the number of teams a university has entered, giving institutions who can afford to send a large number of teams every year a huge advantage in the rankings, is problematic – but that’s not the point right now). Claims that these rankings are widely followed are unverifiable by Wikipedia standards. Beyond the fact that one random invitational tournament in Malaysia has chosen to use them for its invitation criteria, there’s nothing else to prove that these rankings are anything more than a minor curiosity for people who visit Colm’s website. They don’t belong on Wikipedia. They belong at Colm’s website, which is linked to at the WUDC page for anybody looking for it. Dorange 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dorange, who added the note regarding Colm’s edit himself has got only 139 edits with an average edit of 6.31 per month. Even he doesn’t have any significant contribution at WP other than on the RHUL page. I do not value edit count much but had to put this statistics here just because of his interest in counting others edit count :-p .
-
- Now let me refute some of your points.
- You said Colm’s ranking is an original research. I do agree with you. But when someone willingly agrees to allow WP to use his original research, should we have any say against it? I guess no.
- Now let me refute some of your points.
-
-
- You said Colm’s ranking is open to criticism. I do agree but it doesn’t mean that it cannot be considered as an article on WP. Times Higher Education Supplement university- ranking has got huge flaws but still it is one of the best university ranking. You cannot find anything absolutely perfect in the real world. Absolute perfection is a utopian concept.
-
-
-
- You said “there’s nothing else to prove that these rankings are anything more than a minor curiosity for people who visit Colm’s website.” Do you have any reference to prove your statement? We are not ready to accept whatever you say without any proper citation. After WP standard :-p .
-
-
- I must say it’s an intentional attack on Colm’s ranking from a group of new wikipedians. I doubt, some of them are actually same person using multiple ids just to increase votes against this issue. Administrators, would you please check their IPs and ensure that they are not same person? Finally we are ready to submit a reference letter from the world debate council supporting this ranking. Will that do? Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. May I ask who makes the decision on deletion of an article. If there is no common ground between those who believe this is a fringe activity and wish to delete the article and those who see value in it and wish to keep it who makes the decision? As to the accusation that it is unverifiable that anyone takes an interest in the ranking then I will gadly forward the many e-mails I get next January asking me when the ranking will be updated from colleges who have to report back to their sponsors. May I also ask is there a major slimming down of articles in Wikipedia because a quick browse through will yield thoudands of articles which in my opinion are equally irrelevant to all but a handful of people but which I recognise are important to those handful of people. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has been an encliopedia for everyone where fringe facts and details can find a home. If there is an active initiative to remove articles which some people have no inerest in then what will differentiate wikipedia from a CD of Britannica other than the ability to vandalise it? cflynn 13:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. Also may I ask why has someone found it necessary to point out that I have only made 5 edits to Wilipedia in the past. I'm somewhat surprised by the low number of 5 but will admit it is certainly not more than 50. Does the fact that I only edit articles on which I believe I have an authority to speak mean that my input is less valued than the input of someone who imposes themselves on a vast array of subjects to which they have no connection? cflynn 13:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Responses to Niaz and Colm: Let me say again that I mean no disrespect to Colm, who is great archivist of the WUDC, or Niaz, whose efforts to start up a debating Wikiproject are commendable. But there's some things I must point out here:
-
-
- Wikipedia has a policy of not publicising original research. See: Wikipedia:No original research
-
-
-
- For something to be considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards, the information must be available in the public domain. There's nothing out there that can currently verify that these rankings have a wide following. Personal emails and private letters expressing interest in and support of them are not in the public domain (and even if they were, it would take more than a small number of emails or letters to verify a wide following). See: Wikipedia:Verifiability
-
-
-
- Generally on Wikipedia AfD pages it is pointed out when someone who has only a tiny number of edits or who is very new to Wikipedia enters the debate. It's a common practice as it indicates that the person may be unfamilar with Wikipedia policies and norms. I was merely following a common practice when I made a note based on Colm's contribution history. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
-
-
- I'll say it again, I mean no disrespect to Colm and Niaz. But I think they believe that these rankings have more notability (as Wikipedia defines that word) than they actually have. They cannot reasonably be compared to the Times university rankings which are created by a very established organisation and are widely referenced in other sources around the world. Dorange 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I actually didn't compare this ranking with THES, and also agree that in no way these two rankings are comparable. What I tried to mean is, if a famous ranking like THES has got criticism against it, then it is quite expected to have some criticism against/on this ranking.
- Well, this is an original research and I agreed with this point. But when it would be published formally and author himself allowed WP to use this ranking, I guess there won't be any problem regarding NOR policy. Most importantly, author of this original research is also a wikipedian working on this issue. I believe this is one of the biggest advantages for WP to organize debating related articles in a proper way.
- Finally, thanks for the compliment and I would be happy if you also join the project. Whatever we do, at the end of the day we are here to develop WP as a reputed encyclopedia and I believe, your contribution will value a lot. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 05:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll say it again, I mean no disrespect to Colm and Niaz. But I think they believe that these rankings have more notability (as Wikipedia defines that word) than they actually have. They cannot reasonably be compared to the Times university rankings which are created by a very established organisation and are widely referenced in other sources around the world. Dorange 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge. Given that the rankings are based solely on WUDC results, I think this content fits into that entry well. Padraic 00:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge There is clearly no basis for supporting a separate article--there is no independent notability apart from the organization, and I am not sure there would be even if it became formally published. DGG (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep - According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Debating and judging by Niaz and Scarian's comment, this entry meets the notability. --NAHID 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: The two reasons of deleting apparent from the discussion above are - 1) the ranking is not official and 2) original research. I don't think being "officially recognized" is a criteria of inclusion into wikipedia for any kind of article. Wikipedia is not censored. Original research would be a concern if Colm Flynn would have created the article. But that is not the case. Last but not least, the notability of the ranking seems well established from this discussion and the sheer number of google hits for "World Debate Website".
- However, I would politely discourage Colm Flynn to make any additions / changes to this article because that would be against the spirit of WP:OR. Arman Aziz 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete- nothing more than a personal initiative of his. Bad rankings anyway, because they assume every year universities can send the same number of contingents, which numps down competetive, but smaller, unis, in favour of big ones who send the full complement of teams each year. Scrap. Jembot99 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Funny and purely based on hate. Btw, at first try to learn how to work on WP. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Interesting assertion. The logic you propose seems to be "Colm is someone who has done alot of work, and his page gets alot of hits" therefore "anything he writes on his page is a serious thing". I disagree with this notion. This doesn't need a page all of its own, it's also not a very accurate list anyway, and I think alot of people found much of it pretty amusing.Jembot99 07:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Move to Strike- this has been going over 5 days now, can we just kill it already? the page has been merged already bythe creators anyhow, so it's moot.JJJ999 02:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if you're asking me, assumedly it would be merge, a result I think is implicit in the delete remarks, and which I'd be happy to accept. In fact, the author has already done so.JJJ999 04:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with Merge, acknowledging that the information appears to have already been merged into the WUDC article. Official status doesn't have an impact on whether a topic gets an article on WP - but it certainly gives a boost to notability. That said, there isn't enough independent data to prove that the subject is notable enough for its own article. It works well as an aspect of the WUDC article, so I would recommend that we leave it at that.ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I realize that this AFD is filled with skilled and tenacious debaters, but we all really need to take a step back and relax. Have a cup of Coffee, perhaps. We're all on the same team here... except when we're not. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Highlands Elementary School (North Vancouver)
Non-notable elementary school. SolidPlaid 02:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Does not assert notability. Moreover, the "near consensus" is that elementary school are generally excluded of the encyclopedia. Tomj 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Tomj. GreenJoe 20:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per continuing consensus that unless proven otherwise, primary schools are not inherently notable. Bfigura (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to North Vancouver, British Columbia (district municipality), as there is no legitimate reason NOT to do so. Once additional information is available to establish notability for this school, a standalone article can be established in situ. Alansohn 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirct per Alan, if its not notable, it can be used in the districts article as a breif side note. Twenty Years 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete subject fails notability, thus there is no reason why a redirected article should be kept. VanTucky Talk 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to North Vancouver, British Columbia (district municipality) as suggested and per locality guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 01:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete There isn't any content here to merge, and a redirect seems unhelpful. If the school does somehow become notable, the article can be recreated. (But per precedent, elementary schools are almost always non-notable). Bfigura (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (but someone please clean up!) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yoni ben-menachem
- Keep ben-menachem is a very known man in israel and he is an Israeli journalist, he as on hebrew-wiki an article + pic from iba with permission from the source - IBA spokesman miss linda bar. all of the above is from hebrew wiki. plaese help the new gay to make this article to stay. one more important info about yoni is website is working with no intention of profit, it is a site for the benefit of the public. 10 september 2007 (UTC)Shaimax 05:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaimax (talk • contribs)
Self-promoting page of consultant, link goes to his own webpage. SolidPlaid 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Possibly notable, but not verified via reliable sources at all. Huge COI/POV issues Bfigura (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep sort of. Notable figure has HE article, but needs a lot of work, cleanup, wikifying, de-COI, de-OR, etc... --Shuki 18:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment at the risk of exposing my ignorance, what does HE stand for? --Bfigura (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- the Hebrew Wikipedia, often abbreviated around here as heWP. DGG (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Head of Kol Yisrael is a notable position. However, article is in terrible state (notice that external link bounces back to Wikipedia article for info!). Definitely needs a rewrite. HE stands for Hebrew. Number 57 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Agreed, General Director and chief Editor of Kol_Yisrael is notable, which is what the article apparently claims,but some actual documentation would be needed. considering the current state of the article, I am just assuming that is the actual correct title; I do not know just where it stands in their administrative hierarchy. DGG (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Melting Pot (band)
Non-notable disbanded band. SolidPlaid 01:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence to suggest that the band was in any way notable. (However I love the phrase in the article "they dismembered in 2002".) Singopo 02:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. And "Indie" is not a record label. That's a weasely way of getting around the fact of never having been recorded, I'd guess. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability has not been established in the article. -- JamesTeterenko 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus to delete. Consensus regarding a merger should be sought on the appropriate talk pages. Eluchil404 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Center for Jewish Values
No claim of notability. SolidPlaid 01:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, this organization is notable i will try to go to the library and tel you how many newspapers have already discussed this, it is a pity the hareidi newspapers don't publish their reportage's online, but this was noted in the Yated Ne'eman and Hamodia.--יודל 16:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Yeshivish 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
*Delete per SolidPlaid. --Truest blue 17:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) this is user yeshivsh--יודל 13:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As always, do we have mentions of the organization in independent sources to establish notability? SInce the organization has an English name, I would expect it to have some mention in English-language Jewish newspapers or something if it is notable. We can hold up the AfD a few days and see if sources can be obtained, but they need to be there before the end. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Shira: It is precisely because the organization is much too young (established 2001) to have any notabilty in the Jewish world. In any case, we are only looking at it in terms of it is Judaic context and "mentions of the organization in independent sources to establish notability" do not kick in here because then it would be non-starter for sure. IZAK 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Yitzchak Berkovits article. This organization is very minor and only recently established (2001). Its Dean, Rabbi Yitzchak Berkovits is the one who is notable and having a notable rabbi as its leader does not automatically make any institition that he joins also notable especially if it was estalished a couple of years ago and has a long, long way to go to prove it durability. Maybe its gonna be a fly by night? So it's too early to tell. IZAK 22:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Yeshivish Yossiea (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per IZAK. --MPerel 08:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Rabbi Berkovits is very highly regarded. He is the main posek for the English speaking community in Jerusaelm today. Furthermore, the Linas Hatzedek Kollelim are all over the place, and are having a big impact on Klal Yisrael! Bein Adom lChavero is needed to bring the redemption! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look at this link http://www.jewishmediaresources.org/article/689/ It sounds very good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.224.228 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- As Mitzvot Bein Adom LCHavero constitute half of the Mitzvot (commandments) of Judaism, their work is very significant! They have also grown remarkably since Rabbi Berkovits started the first Kollel a few years ago. They have printed many seforim as well. See http://jewishvalues.us/page5.html
- Merge - unless I see that the article satisfies the notability requirement by being the primary subject of multiple third-party, independent, etc. reliable sources. The article can be recreated later if the organization becomes famous. The Behnam 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep or merge depending on whether the sources show independent notability. The key parts of the non-English print sources can be translated and included as references--we arent limited by language or print-only status. But it would be good to rewrite the article--and conduct the discussion--in a way more accessible to WPedians in general. DGG (talk)
- Keep Very significant for their to be a movement towards Bein Adom LChavero in Yeshiva world. Until now, this has been unheard of. furthermore, with leader of rabbi Berkovits stature, it is going places! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.180.242 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep An organization which operates 18 Kollels cannot be 'fly-by-night' or flash-in-the-pan, and the unique content is also note-worthy. (83.130.46.240 11:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
Still not notable - I have no idea what "Bein Adom LChavero in Yeshiva world" is, nor how hard it is to operate 18 Kollels. The article still does not have notability so it must be deleted. The one article linked there does not establish notability. SolidPlaid 12:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep SolidPlaid wrote: that he has "no idea what "Bein Adom LChavero in Yeshiva world" is, nor how hard it is to operate 18 Kollels". Then perhaps you are too uninformed to be commenting here. The article states what Bein Adom L'Chavero is, though any 'commentator' on Jewish matters ought to know- The Torah's guidelines for Interpersonal Relations; these constitute more than HALF of the Mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah (Jewish Bible, if you will). The Yeshiva World: The community of Yeshivot (schools of Religious Instruction) and its alumni in North America, Europe, and Israel comprise the fastest growing sector of the Jewish People today.Kollel "a gathering/collection [of scholars]") is an institute for advanced studies of the Talmud and of rabbinic literature for Jewish adults, essentially a yeshiva which pays married men a regular monthly stipend or annual salary (and/or provides housing and meals) to study Judaism's classic texts in depth. The plural in Hebrew is kollelim. An organization operating eighteen of them- is clearly notable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.60.120 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't disagree with your analysis, but the problem is that the article does not cite independent internet sources saying what you are saying about the Center. I don't need to be informed to nominate something for deletion, I do it on the basis of lack of references in the article. To put it plainly: we have no proof that the Center for Jewish Values runs 18 kollelim, nor do we have proof that anyone has posted anything to the internet to the effect that running 18 kollelim is notable. SolidPlaid 04:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non notable organization. SefringleTalk 18:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears notable. • Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Joseph Krysiak
Contested prod. Nominating for reason of non-notable. Google search with "Joseph Krysiak -wikipedia" returns 35 results. External reference within article point to an article that merely have a passing mention of the subject when talking about something else. KTC 01:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Little to no claims of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence to suggest that the project he founded was more than a small local project. Zaxem 02:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carioca 01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] De Aston School
Transfer from prod as we seems to not have a definitive consensus on schools. Original prod reason is Fails WP:ORG; no independent sources cited (other than a directory entry). Cf. also talk page." (User:B. Wolterding). -- KTC 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as it doesn't cite any sources to assert notability. The BBC link is not a source. --Darkwind (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
*Keep - there is sufficient consensus here that secondary schools are notable. TerriersFan 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep on the basis of the information shown in the improved article. Notable by any reasonable standard. DGG (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep There probably is a developing consensus that all secondary schools are notable because there would be something notable to say if enough work were done.Very low quality articles like this won't help convince people, though.DGG (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
:*Comment - it was a poor article, I agree. However, as we discuss quite frequently, the test is not whether the article is any good now but whether the subject is notable, that is that there are sufficient secondary sources available to make a decent, encyclopaedic article. This school has plenty as any search will show. Having said that, I have now added some so that it clearly meets WP:N. TerriersFan 23:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- V/Weak keep per DGG, wouldnt disagree to a merge. Twenty Years 08:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. It was originally a poor article which made no claims for notability. I've added some more info to the article. The school was founded in 1863. A brief Google search reveals pages of results (eg, many of the boys at the school lost their lives in WWII). The old headmaster's house, built in 1863, is a Grade II listed building. There is plenty more work which could be done. With such a long history there will be ample material available to expand the article. There is no doubting this school's notability. I just wish people would make more effort in the first place! Dahliarose 08:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- In addition De Aston is one of only a handful (c. 20? maximum)of English state schools which takes boarders - another reason for its notability.
- Strong keep - Multiple non-trivial sources have now been added. Taken with being a secondary school, with a sixth form, 150 years history, a state boarding school, and a listed building makes this an easy meet of WP:N. TerriersFan 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article, as expanded, provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per TerriersFAn, Alansohn and DGG. -- DS1953 talk 04:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Well referenced. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. Recheck WP:SCHOOLS. --SmokeyJoe 11:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ace of Spades HQ
Deletion requested by User:CharlesGiacometti, on the grounds that the subject is non-notable. See Talk:Ace of Spades HQ for his reasoning. I'm nominating it on his behalf, as he tried to do so himself but didn't follow the nomination process correctly. Terraxos 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep like so many political blogs it's mainly noticable in that context and the article is not very NPOV, but a case may be made that it's noticable enough in the "real world". --Martin Wisse 11:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - is notable, IMO -- Cabalamat 14:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - This is a marginal, highly illogical blogger who writes terribly. The article is wildly positive, which tells me no one reads the entry except for true believers. If he were notable enough, people would create balance in the article they way they routinely do with better known political bloggers. CharlesGiacometti.
- Keep. I'm definitely not a true believer in this blog (or even a reader), and I do understand the concerns expressed by Charles with respect to the quality of this article, however I do think it probably passes the notability guidelines. It has been cited in several mainstream news sources, and is a fairly high-traffic political blog. I'm not entirely clear about blog notability guidelines and would hope that those who have more familiarity with those could weigh in here. Incidentally, this article used to be filled with patent nonsense and nothing else-I largely cleaned it out but it still has some stupid crap in it and needs some serious work. When I first came across it I threatened to put it up for AfD and some decent sources were then added, so maybe this AfD will be the kick needed to improve this thing.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think his numbers are what he claims. If you take a look at the last nomination for this article, you'll see that it was claimed he had "millions of pageviews" when in reality that was for the entire mu.nu domain, which houses a number of (largely also marginal and illogical) blogs in addition to this one. I don't know what Wikipedia's exact notability requirements for bloggers are these days, but I can't imagine this blog being high up on anyone's list of quality political blogs. Simba B 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep - the subject satisfies notability requirements, as Bigtimepeace notes; the entry would be vastly improved by keeping just the first three grafs and perhaps a tightened-up summary (i.e. a couple of sentences) of the rest, but that's for the talk page, not an AfD. Holgate 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Bigtimepeace.
Ace's blog now has 15 million visits, according to SiteMeter[38] — and that's just ace.mu.nu, not the whole mu.nu domain. Moreover, he's currently ranked #70 in The Truth Laid Bear's ecosystem.[39] I say these numbers make the blog Notable, even though that's not how Wikipedia's Notability guidelines work (yet).
I also agree that this article Needs Some Work™. Cheers, CWC 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC) - Keep. Satisfies Wikipedia:Notability. sufficient coverage in secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe 11:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rewrite Needs to be more NPOV, but still worth keeping ffm 13:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 22:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Santa Cruz (band)
Been tagged for notability since March, and so far, no notability. It's only a few sentences long, so if somebody comes up with any, it can always be rewritten. Completely unsourced, not even an external link. delldot talk 01:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Nobody could even be bothered to form complete sentences since March. Good grief. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No assertion of notability. MarkBul 04:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced, failing key policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, let alone failing Wikipedia:Notability —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. would have been no consensus, but it's a copyvio of here, no reason for keeping copyvios, also don't recreate the article unless, reliable, non trivial, independent sources can be found. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Covenant Christian Academy (Loganville, Georgia)
Transfer from prod as we seems to not have a definitive consensus on schools. Original prod reason is "Non-notable, unreferenced, POV. This is just another school - there is no assertion of notability and no internal evidence of it in the article. Why should it be in an encyclopedia? The article is written like an advert - serious POV issues." (User:Andyjsmith). -- KTC 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No sign of notability, and has nom suggests, has POV issues Bfigura (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Why should it be in an encyclopedia? Why indeed. Completely non-notable, highly self-promotional and self-congratulatory. Accounting4Taste 04:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's about time we did have a definite policy on schools, especially as a lot of WP users come from schools so the first thing they seem to do is copy promotional material from the school website! andy 07:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —KTC 09:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This was the middle school and possibly high school for Jordan Pruitt. I have also seen many other Schools that could be deemed "just another school" and with "no assertion of notability and no internal evidence of it in the article". Why have you brought this up on just this one school?— Supuhstar * §
- Delete. Just because we have other articles on non-notable school does not mean we should have either this one or them. I don't know who Pruitt is and unless he/she is immensely important and the school is an important part of that fame and influence, then he/she does not matter. Lundse 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also, in Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia, the final thing clearly states that "We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That is our commitment — and we need your help." And so I helped. How is that not in compliance with the statement? Surely the sum of all knowledge will include some relatively miscellaneous facts, right? So tell me. Is there still an argument?— Supuhstar * §
- All knowledge is not to be taken literal, as our policies on what not to include explains. But I am sorry if we are deleting a subject on which you felt you had something to share with the world. I am not changing my vote for this reason, but I do sincerely hope that you find something to add here which will be included. Lundse 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. A high school with 300 students (K-12), a special mission, and a notable alum is most likely notable. The case would be much stronger if there's at least one source, some more wikilinks, a statement of what the school's importance is (beyond its mission), etc.Wikidemo 03:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - reading the WP article about Jordan Pruitt I wonder if she's notable in her own right. I certainly doubt she's notable enough to confer notability on this school. Pretty much any decent sized high school has alumni who are fairly well known for something - e.g. town mayor - but on that basis every high school will be important enough an encyclopedia article. andy 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is not inherited. KTC 05:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - reading the WP article about Jordan Pruitt I wonder if she's notable in her own right. I certainly doubt she's notable enough to confer notability on this school. Pretty much any decent sized high school has alumni who are fairly well known for something - e.g. town mayor - but on that basis every high school will be important enough an encyclopedia article. andy 11:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whilst there is alot of cruft here, which will completely avoid. This is purely non-notable.Twenty Years 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikidemo. -- DS1953 talk 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to myschool.wikia.com. Fails WP:N --SmokeyJoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The facts claimed are patently trivial, and being "special" (I would not call this school unique in any way) is not directly analogous to the concept of notability, which is only defined through significant coverage in independent sources. The institution still fails WP:N. VanTucky Talk 22:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Even deletionists acknowledge the school is "special", which would meet the requirements to demonstrate notability. No requirement exists to meet a standard of "unique". Claims made satisfy notability requirements. Alansohn 01:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- In what way do "Claims made satisfy notability requirements"? The opinion so far is that they don't. Can you give an example of how this article shows that the school is notable? andy 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Probably most high schools will be notable if enough research is done, and based on its specific mission I consider that this falls into the category which is certainly notable. Further, notable alumni are, in fact, one of the key factors that make schools notable. DGG (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You're correct DGG, notable alumni are a good indicator of notability. But one almunus is not sufficient. Almost every single school has at least one person who went on to professional sports or the like. Multiple notable almuni are the required indicator of the school being notable. Besides, that kind of notability is clearly inherited. VanTucky Talk 18:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...and what's the basic criterion of notability? "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", that's what. There is no evidence of this here (nor in the case of most other schools). andy 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was result pending closed to digest the discussion Gnangarra 12:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep and rename, I've included a detail reasoning.
OK lets look at this discussion in detail, firstly raw figures keep 22(two discounted), delete 14 and 1 redirect. That alone shows as a pure vote for the article to be kept, but afd isnt a pure vote. 5 comments based the keep on the basis that the article was an "I dont like it" nomination bring those pure numbers down to 17/14/1 still a keep consensus. All this is just to demostrate that I'm aware of the numbers involved, and they are part of my ultimate consideration in the result.
The term Pallywood does met the defination of a Neologism "a word that has been recently created" for this the guideline WP:NEO is an indication of the way in which we address Neologism, and WP:NEO#Reliable_sources_for_neologisms define the differnece between sourcing the term and identifing usage. With the sources quoted they are "usage" which show its in use, is it wide spread would create discussion longer than this afd. Is it notable its usage in multiple RS even just in passing does lean in that direction.
The film/video Pallywood from the numbers expressed(and checked) indicates its of interest, its also garnished some trival mentions in RS's.
The conclusion is the content should be kept, the term Pallywood should also be addressed within the article, the film/video should also be covered but neither has enough to be the focus of a stand-alone article even when combined. This was the solution that was building as the discussion progressed a number of possible article names were suggested, Alleged Palestinian media manipulation is the most concise suggestion. This does have a POV outlook as such I've moved the article to a more neutral Alleged media manipulation in Palestine, ultimately its naming is up to article editors to discuss on the article talk page. Gnangarra 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pallywood
I am an inclusionist when it comes to articles on controversial subjects; I think articles should answer to the curiosities of readers rather than to the moral imperatives of Wikipedians. I’m on the record for having supported the retention of this article, and have often invoked it as marking the lower threshold of notability. If reliable sources discussing the “term” Pallywood are exceedingly thin on the ground, went my thinking, at least there’s the documentary film. Researching the “film” in the last few days, however, put things in a rather different light, and further scrutiny of both it and the print sources lead me to conclude that the subject definitely isn’t notable, and worse, that this article exists as a sort of promotional piece.
Though editors have edit-warred to ensure that the article suggests otherwise,[40] the film is not in fact a film but rather an amateur online video, edited by a professor of medieval history. It’s available streaming on his blog, as well as on youtube – nowhere else. It has never been screened or distributed, has never featured in any film or video festivals, and has never been reviewed by any mainstream source, or to the best of my knowledge any reliable source at all. IMDB, which is fairly exhaustive and has categories for documentaries and shorts, has never heard of it. It doesn’t appear to be housed by a single university research library anywhere in the world, according to WorldCat (research libraries routinely purchase documentary films – most major ones have Jenin, Jenin, for example, just to give some context). That blurry little low-res 3”x5” youtube video short is it – that’s all there is, all Pallywood ever was. And though a big hit among Wikipedians (some eight or nine Israel-Palestine articles link to it), the video is all but unknown among real-world reliable sources. Not a single book I can find in Google Books or Google Scholar even mentions it. The closest thing to a review I can find is a two-sentence passing mention on page 19 of the Daily Telegraph 's Saturday Art section, in a piece called "A Conspiracy Theorist's Paradise," which describes how anyone with a computer and a video camera can make a movie these days, and gives some examples one of which is Pallywood.
As for the “term,” despite our presenting it as a “neologism,” it seems never to have made its way out of the small online corner of the right-wing pro-Israel blogosphere. Complete historical databases of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune all wrinkle their eyebrows, shrug their shoulders, and ask me if I meant "plywood." Lexis-Nexis gives three hits (three!): the Frum article, the Toronto Star piece, and the aforementioned “conspiracy-theorist’s paradise” piece. The article's ref list is literally exhaustive; not even UrbanDictionary.com, which just yesterday added “Chocolate Rain” to its lexicon of neologisms (“a euphemism for racism created by Tay Zonday in his hit YouTube song "Chocolate Rain"), has heard of "pallywood." And again, no Google Books hits. Well, except for the following from a 2004 novel, Don Dimaio of La Plata:
Every guy for a hundred-mile radius knows this is the city for flesh exchange and in each one’s filthy little mind I, Mayor Donald “Pally” Dimaio, am the the pimping host.
“Welcome to Pallywood!” There’s a black bowtie on my bare neck and a lecherous grin on my face…
And so on. Given the article’s evident desperation for source material – it actually includes a usenet thread where some punchy anonymous thread-poster says “Pallywood” and evidently thinks he’s coined it – I wouldn’t be surprised if Mayor Pally Dimaio did make a cameo appearance on the heels of this AfD.
The edit war and debate over that usenet thread is incidentally quite instructive; editors who pride themselves on their strictness about quality sources and original research actually insisted that usenet in this case was an RS, and that the ad hoc ‘coinage’ therein established the term’s currency prior to the youtube video – even though nonce words and “currency” are oxymoronic concepts. The article, in short, is promotional puffery for obscure blog-jargon and an obscure youtube video. It answers not to the reader’s desire to discover but rather to the Wikipedian’s desire to promote, as demonstrated by all the dogged cross-linking. And it’ll probably work, as journalists (and even scholars) increasingly turn to Wikipedia for their first gloss of a subject. It’s one thing to let Pokemon articles proliferate into the darkest corners of arcana, because the stakes are correspondingly low, but the standards for the most serious and contentious subjects on Wikipedia have to be a little different. Pallywood doesn’t meet the criteria of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (films), and “pallywood” hasn’t been sufficiently used or even recognized by reliable sources; so the video and the blog-slang cling to one another, each invoking the other’s flimsy creds in order to crash the party, where they're now working the rooms, handing out business cards, trying to network and pose for pictures with Saeb Erekat, Netzarim, Battle of Jenin, Muhammad al-Durrah, and other notables. Let the bouncer throw them out.--G-Dett 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC) G-Dett 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The nomination was not listed properly, it is now fixed. KTC 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep. We've been all over this multiple times. You can't delete articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If Bus Uncle can be a Featured ARticle of the Day, this film, which has been viewed by millions of people (and which has 185,000 Google hits), is certainly notable enough to stay. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- reply Start again, reading the nomination first this time. There's nothing about me not liking it. As with various pornographic search terms, 99.999999% of those 185,000 Google hits aren't reliable sources but blogs and usenet threads and other nonsense – including, significantly, a great many sites that replicate Wikipedia content – referencing and mirroring each other like so many pinballs off of bumpers, ding ding ding. The film very clearly, categorically, and on all counts fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), and the "neologism" has been noted in passing by four or five reliable sources at most, meriting in almost every instance a single sentence. Neither the New York Times nor the Wall Street Journal nor the Chicago Tribune nor the Washington Post nor the Los Angeles Times has ever heard of it, nor have Google Books, Google Scholar... nor even Urban-freakin'-Dictionary. Google's heard of it. That's all you've got.--G-Dett 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing in your extended tirade (I particularly liked the pinball metaphor) merits amounts to anything approaching a reason why, under WP standards, this article should be deleted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you enjoyed the pinball, Briangotts, but what you've contributed to this discussion is a WP:ILIKEIT argument masquerading as a dismissal of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If you can't engage with the detailed case for deletion put forward, you always have the option of sitting this one out.--G-Dett 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- You've made your opinions clear, why don't you stop badgering those who don't share your opinion? My view remains that if you think your argument is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you are deluding yourself. Let the voters decide. Right now there is certainly no consensus for your view. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Glad you enjoyed the pinball, Briangotts, but what you've contributed to this discussion is a WP:ILIKEIT argument masquerading as a dismissal of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. If you can't engage with the detailed case for deletion put forward, you always have the option of sitting this one out.--G-Dett 04:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing in your extended tirade (I particularly liked the pinball metaphor) merits amounts to anything approaching a reason why, under WP standards, this article should be deleted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Actually Pallywood is refered to very frequently in the media. I received no less then 34 hits in the Google media archives, in several languages, many of which in major publications. [41] Google Books and Google Scholar also each had a hit. The article definitely needs improvements, including referencing with the many media articles. I can easily see where G-Dett was misled by the few direct references in the article. gidonb 01:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- reply Hi Gidonb. Your google media archives net brought in the articles we already have, plus some more blogs and non-RS stuff. The single Google books hit is the one I gave above, the novel where a pimp named "Pally" refers to his 'hood as "Pallywood." The Google Scholar hit (I'm sorry, I don't know how I missed it) is an article by Gerald Steinberg called "NGOs Wage War against Israel"; my guess is it too, like the four or five other reliable sources used for this article, has a single-sentence drive-by mention of "pallywood," but I'm not prepared to buy the article to find out if I'm right.--G-Dett 01:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I found the Steinberg article through my university library. It doesn't have even a single sentence on "pallywood." A passage questioning Mohammed al-Dura's death is cited to a Commentary article, and the footnote providing the cite also gives a link to Landes' blog, with the word "pallywood" appearing as part of the URL address.--G-Dett 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello G-Dett. Well, lets take a look at the 34 entries with direct references to Pallywood in the Google Media Archives together. Definately they are not all in the article. The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame in the International Herald Tribune is in it. So is And now it's 'Reutersgate' in the Toronto Star. And Some Shunning the Palestinian Hard Stance in the Boston Globe. But all of the following seem to be omitted: Bloggers clear smoke clouding war coverage in the Kansas City Star. BKA, Beirut Babelsberg in Die Welt. American media in no hurry to discredit frauds in the Erie Times-News. An article in the La Voz de Galicia that was not available at this moment. And Die "Web-Version" der Tragödie in Kana. Update in Telepolis. In none of the cases it was part of a URL. I may have overlooked something of course. Note that all of these media are in our encyclopedia, some with a huge readership. This is only part of the 34 and as usual with Google there was some repetition among them (especially the Toronto Star article). Also not all media are in the archives. In any case, the obundance of references in the mainstream media seem to underpin the importance of Pallywood and undermine the rationale for the AfD. Perhaps it is worthwhile to review it? Best regards, gidonb 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gidonb, please understand that I've given this a great deal of thought, and am on the record for having supported this article when I thought (i) that Pallywood was a notable documentary film, which it is clearly not; and (ii) that the sources "address the subject directly in detail" (per WP:N), the subject not being media manipulation but "pallywood." The two or three added sources you've found suffer from the problem I've indicated below in my reply to Daniel: they address allegations of Arab media manipulation in detail, but "pallywood" only very fleetingly and off-handedly. As an encyclopedia, we can and should discuss such allegations of media manipulation, but it's absolutely inappropriate for us to promote the obscure slangword "pallywood" as the name for this alleged phenomenon. An article on alleged Arab media manipulation, with a brief mention of the slangword and the youtube video, is the obviously appropriate solution. It's how the reliable sources deal with this, and we take our cue from them.--G-Dett 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G-Dett, I am certain that you have put a lot of thought into this AfD and want other Wikipedians to invest some time in this as well. "[A]ddress the subject directly in detail", is part of sentence in a paragraph of WP:N that concludes with: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Pallywood, by the sources in the Google Media Archives, meets WP:N. Reading through the obundance of reference, the detail stretches all the way from trivial, through non-trivial-non-exclusive as WP:N demands, to even exclusive. Best regards, gidonb 12:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Gidonb. Paring down the Google Media Archives results to those that are reliable sources (i.e. not blogs and so on), wouldn't you agree that their subject is alleged Arab media manipulation, and that they mention "pallywood" in passing? Wouldn't it make sense for us to follow them in this regard? Please understand that I'm not suggesting the word "pallywood" be expunged from Wikipedia; and far from trying to "whitewash" the issue (as an unthinking editor put it below), I'm suggesting that we open up the subject to the much broader and better range of sources that address it but don't necessarily mention the existence of an obscure blog word for it. The net effect would be that the reader would have more information, not less, and she'd still hear about the Landes video and the blogslang, in its proper context, and Pallywood would be a redirect. We just wouldn't be promoting "pallywood" as the accepted term for the subject, since it isn't.--G-Dett 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G-Dett. Thank you for the compliment! However, please discuss concerns about the responses of other editors under their answers. You and I always got along very well and I would like to keep it that way! I hope I can find time to map the refences for you by category. There is another book with a non-trivial reference: Will Israel Survive? by Mitchell Bard, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2007. I am in favor of having the article that you suggest and would like to move some of Pallywood's content to that one. This article should be about the film, the website and their very notable impact on popular culture (i.e., the neologism). It should not then include criticism on media beyond where the term was used. Where it does -and only in these cases- it becomes a "rolling topic". Best regards, gidonb 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference to Will Israel Survive? and for the "more than trivial but less than exclusive" definition of significant coverage from WP:N. Did you notice the example WP:N gives to illustrate that? "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial." Now here is the "pallywood" reference in Will Israel Survive. Towards the end of a chapter on "media bias," there's a single paragraph on media manipulation by "Israel's enemies," which includes two examples about Hezbollah, then this: "Boston University professor Richard Landes has put together a website with raw video footage he calls 'Pallywood,' which documents how the Palestinians fake everything from shoot-outs with Israeli soldiers to funerals. The classic scene shows a group of mourners carrying a body on a stretcher; suddenly, the stretcher falls to the ground, and the 'corpse' gets up and runs away." Bard then turns back to Lebanon and how asymmetrical warfare is represented by the media. That's it. "Pallywood" is not even listed in the subject index (which is exhaustive enough to include "checkbook Zionism," single mention on page 68). I would call this a textbook example of a passing mention, Gidonb, moreover one awfully close to the very example WP:N gives of what is "plainly trivial." The subject getting "significant coverage" here is media bias (clearly), or media manipulation (arguably), but not "pallywood."--G-Dett 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G-Dett. Yes, you are right that the book reference would qualify as trivial. However, you totally ignored the rest of my text and my suggestion. I think that it would solve the problems around this subject. Do you agree? Regards, gidonb 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reference to Will Israel Survive? and for the "more than trivial but less than exclusive" definition of significant coverage from WP:N. Did you notice the example WP:N gives to illustrate that? "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton is plainly trivial." Now here is the "pallywood" reference in Will Israel Survive. Towards the end of a chapter on "media bias," there's a single paragraph on media manipulation by "Israel's enemies," which includes two examples about Hezbollah, then this: "Boston University professor Richard Landes has put together a website with raw video footage he calls 'Pallywood,' which documents how the Palestinians fake everything from shoot-outs with Israeli soldiers to funerals. The classic scene shows a group of mourners carrying a body on a stretcher; suddenly, the stretcher falls to the ground, and the 'corpse' gets up and runs away." Bard then turns back to Lebanon and how asymmetrical warfare is represented by the media. That's it. "Pallywood" is not even listed in the subject index (which is exhaustive enough to include "checkbook Zionism," single mention on page 68). I would call this a textbook example of a passing mention, Gidonb, moreover one awfully close to the very example WP:N gives of what is "plainly trivial." The subject getting "significant coverage" here is media bias (clearly), or media manipulation (arguably), but not "pallywood."--G-Dett 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G-Dett. Thank you for the compliment! However, please discuss concerns about the responses of other editors under their answers. You and I always got along very well and I would like to keep it that way! I hope I can find time to map the refences for you by category. There is another book with a non-trivial reference: Will Israel Survive? by Mitchell Bard, published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2007. I am in favor of having the article that you suggest and would like to move some of Pallywood's content to that one. This article should be about the film, the website and their very notable impact on popular culture (i.e., the neologism). It should not then include criticism on media beyond where the term was used. Where it does -and only in these cases- it becomes a "rolling topic". Best regards, gidonb 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Gidonb. Paring down the Google Media Archives results to those that are reliable sources (i.e. not blogs and so on), wouldn't you agree that their subject is alleged Arab media manipulation, and that they mention "pallywood" in passing? Wouldn't it make sense for us to follow them in this regard? Please understand that I'm not suggesting the word "pallywood" be expunged from Wikipedia; and far from trying to "whitewash" the issue (as an unthinking editor put it below), I'm suggesting that we open up the subject to the much broader and better range of sources that address it but don't necessarily mention the existence of an obscure blog word for it. The net effect would be that the reader would have more information, not less, and she'd still hear about the Landes video and the blogslang, in its proper context, and Pallywood would be a redirect. We just wouldn't be promoting "pallywood" as the accepted term for the subject, since it isn't.--G-Dett 13:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi G-Dett, I am certain that you have put a lot of thought into this AfD and want other Wikipedians to invest some time in this as well. "[A]ddress the subject directly in detail", is part of sentence in a paragraph of WP:N that concludes with: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." Pallywood, by the sources in the Google Media Archives, meets WP:N. Reading through the obundance of reference, the detail stretches all the way from trivial, through non-trivial-non-exclusive as WP:N demands, to even exclusive. Best regards, gidonb 12:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Gidonb, please understand that I've given this a great deal of thought, and am on the record for having supported this article when I thought (i) that Pallywood was a notable documentary film, which it is clearly not; and (ii) that the sources "address the subject directly in detail" (per WP:N), the subject not being media manipulation but "pallywood." The two or three added sources you've found suffer from the problem I've indicated below in my reply to Daniel: they address allegations of Arab media manipulation in detail, but "pallywood" only very fleetingly and off-handedly. As an encyclopedia, we can and should discuss such allegations of media manipulation, but it's absolutely inappropriate for us to promote the obscure slangword "pallywood" as the name for this alleged phenomenon. An article on alleged Arab media manipulation, with a brief mention of the slangword and the youtube video, is the obviously appropriate solution. It's how the reliable sources deal with this, and we take our cue from them.--G-Dett 15:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hello G-Dett. Well, lets take a look at the 34 entries with direct references to Pallywood in the Google Media Archives together. Definately they are not all in the article. The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame in the International Herald Tribune is in it. So is And now it's 'Reutersgate' in the Toronto Star. And Some Shunning the Palestinian Hard Stance in the Boston Globe. But all of the following seem to be omitted: Bloggers clear smoke clouding war coverage in the Kansas City Star. BKA, Beirut Babelsberg in Die Welt. American media in no hurry to discredit frauds in the Erie Times-News. An article in the La Voz de Galicia that was not available at this moment. And Die "Web-Version" der Tragödie in Kana. Update in Telepolis. In none of the cases it was part of a URL. I may have overlooked something of course. Note that all of these media are in our encyclopedia, some with a huge readership. This is only part of the 34 and as usual with Google there was some repetition among them (especially the Toronto Star article). Also not all media are in the archives. In any case, the obundance of references in the mainstream media seem to underpin the importance of Pallywood and undermine the rationale for the AfD. Perhaps it is worthwhile to review it? Best regards, gidonb 09:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I found the Steinberg article through my university library. It doesn't have even a single sentence on "pallywood." A passage questioning Mohammed al-Dura's death is cited to a Commentary article, and the footnote providing the cite also gives a link to Landes' blog, with the word "pallywood" appearing as part of the URL address.--G-Dett 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, almost none of the sources in the article seem to actually be about the term. Horribly fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've seen the term used on the EU Referendum blog. I doubt it's been used much outside of the pro-Israel blog world, so I doubt it holds up as notable. Legitimate, yes. Notable by Wiki standards, no. MarkBul 02:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I have to concur with the nom, who (significantly) argued for retention in the past. Looks like an attempt to manufacture buzz. Delete with extreme prejudice. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I expect this article to survive, for the usual reasons, but clearly its deletion is required by policy. Quite simply, there are no reliable sources which discuss the term in any detail. A typical mention (from IHT:) "as one American academic put it — artfully staged "Pallywood" theater." The article is just a coatrack for every dumb defamatory idea one could come up with, artfully puffed up to conceal the utterly dismal quality of the source. I mean - Bush speechwriter David Frum? Arutz Sheva, the mouthpiece of the religious-Zionist settler movement? The Mackenzie Institute which informed Canada that we could spot suicide bombers by the extra underwear they don to save their genitals for the 72 virgins? The Canada Free Press which once reported that al-Qaeda hit the World Trade Center as part of a conspiracy with carbon-credit traders? What the hell?! Eleland 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Nothing has changed since the last AfD, which was well-attended and not even close to resulting in deletion. Term is in widespread use, as has been shown repeatedly, and the article (while it could use cleanup) is much more than a definition. — xDanielx T/C 02:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is indeed more than a definition; it's a promotional blurb. The slangword is in "widespread use" on a narrow bandwidth of the right-wing blogosphere, and nowhere else. What's changed since last time is that exhaustive and conclusive evidence of non-notability has been provided.--G-Dett 03:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Promotional blurb"? We don't delete notable neologisms because they are used more frequently on one side of the political spectrum than another. Should we delete the pro-choice article as well? — xDanielx T/C 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Daniel. I think you've misunderstood what I meant by "promotional." The grounds for deletion are non-notability – not, as I said explicitly at the outset of my nomination, political tendentiousness. The problem is not that the term promotes a political view. The problem, as I had hoped to make clear, is that the article promotes a non-notable amateur video and non-notable bit of blog-slang from low-level webscurity into encyclopedic legitimacy and significance. I assure you that if this were an article about a catchphrase coined by a leftwing amateur video and echoing around Znet, Electronicintifada, and myriad sympathetic usenet threads, and Wikipedians had puffed it into something like this, I'd be moving to delete. This is about notability. I support both Islamophobia and Islamofascism, New antisemitism and Israeli apartheid analogy, pro-choice and pro-life, and indeed any number of other articles about terms and concepts that, however tendentious they may be, don't suffer from a demonstrated lack of notability.--G-Dett 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your analysis of notability seems rather biased. www.seconddraft.org is a site specifically dedicated to the subject. The material might or might not have gone through peer review, but it is run by Richard Landes, who is certainly an authoritative figure in the field. "Palywood" has attracted attention from a sizable handful of credible media sources, and has drawn a lot of Internet attention in general. Only a handful of the references give substantial attention to the term "Pallywood," but most (all?) of them give substantial attention to the subject. You won't find articles from reliables sources which use the phrases List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks or List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references in every other sentence, but you will find that the subjects have drawn substantial attention from reliable sources. — xDanielx T/C 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Richard Landes is a professor of medieval history. His professional qualifications as a medievalist have no bearing on his competence to discuss current affairs. -- ChrisO 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that a small slice of his current teaching is focused on midieval studies does not make him unqualified to judge current affairs. He rightly self-identifies as a historian and history teacher. He has a BA in social studies, and an MA and PhD in History, from Harvard, Princeton, and Princeton respectively. The Arab-Israeli conflict is obviously a big part of his research. He is about as qualified as anyone to report on the subject. — xDanielx T/C 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could cite some examples of Landes' independently published scholarly works on the Arab-Israeli conflict? (Good luck, because as far as I know there aren't any.) WP:RS addresses this kind of issue: "A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. However, the author of a source may be reliable outside her/his primary field if s/he has become recognized as having expertise in that secondary area of study." I'm not aware of any reputable attestations of Landes' expertise in Arab-Israeli politics. Again, if you can cite some, please do. -- ChrisO 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that a small slice of his current teaching is focused on midieval studies does not make him unqualified to judge current affairs. He rightly self-identifies as a historian and history teacher. He has a BA in social studies, and an MA and PhD in History, from Harvard, Princeton, and Princeton respectively. The Arab-Israeli conflict is obviously a big part of his research. He is about as qualified as anyone to report on the subject. — xDanielx T/C 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Richard Landes is a professor of medieval history. His professional qualifications as a medievalist have no bearing on his competence to discuss current affairs. -- ChrisO 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your analysis of notability seems rather biased. www.seconddraft.org is a site specifically dedicated to the subject. The material might or might not have gone through peer review, but it is run by Richard Landes, who is certainly an authoritative figure in the field. "Palywood" has attracted attention from a sizable handful of credible media sources, and has drawn a lot of Internet attention in general. Only a handful of the references give substantial attention to the term "Pallywood," but most (all?) of them give substantial attention to the subject. You won't find articles from reliables sources which use the phrases List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks or List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references in every other sentence, but you will find that the subjects have drawn substantial attention from reliable sources. — xDanielx T/C 09:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Daniel. I think you've misunderstood what I meant by "promotional." The grounds for deletion are non-notability – not, as I said explicitly at the outset of my nomination, political tendentiousness. The problem is not that the term promotes a political view. The problem, as I had hoped to make clear, is that the article promotes a non-notable amateur video and non-notable bit of blog-slang from low-level webscurity into encyclopedic legitimacy and significance. I assure you that if this were an article about a catchphrase coined by a leftwing amateur video and echoing around Znet, Electronicintifada, and myriad sympathetic usenet threads, and Wikipedians had puffed it into something like this, I'd be moving to delete. This is about notability. I support both Islamophobia and Islamofascism, New antisemitism and Israeli apartheid analogy, pro-choice and pro-life, and indeed any number of other articles about terms and concepts that, however tendentious they may be, don't suffer from a demonstrated lack of notability.--G-Dett 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Promotional blurb"? We don't delete notable neologisms because they are used more frequently on one side of the political spectrum than another. Should we delete the pro-choice article as well? — xDanielx T/C 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This is a good illustration of what I'm talking about, how the article's meager set of sources have become a set of funhouse mirrors. Daniel is impressed that an entire site is "specifically dedicated to the subject," not realizing that he's talking about the blog of the guy who made the youtube video and coined the term in the first place. We're in a tiny tin-can echo chamber here. Daniel does however make an extremely important distinction: "Only a handful of the references give substantial attention to the term "Pallywood," but most (all?) of them give substantial attention to the subject . Very well. Let's cover the subject, not an obscure slangword by which the subject is known among a small segment of the right-wing blogosphere.--G-Dett 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realize that Richard Landes played a significant role in popularizing the term -- I don't know why you're assuming otherwise. This does not make him unqualified to comment on a subject in which he has expertise. I suppose we could rename the article to Allegations of news events staged by Palesteinian and other cameramen or something similar, but I'm not really convinced that we should do so given that the equivalent neologism is already widely accepted. — xDanielx T/C 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're trying to establish the notability of Landes' youtube video by citing his blog, and meanwhile trying to establish the notability of his blog by citing his qualifications – which consist solely of his youtube video. The reasoning is tautological, that is to say, completely circular. Your suggestion that the article could be moved to Allegations of news events staged by Palesteinian and other cameramen, however, stumbles into the general vicinity of good sense, though it would need to be something more like Alleged Arab media manipulation in the Arab-Israel conflict, since the most notable sources focus on examples from the 2006 Lebanon War. "Pallywood" could certainly be a redirect, but your claim that this "equivalent neologism is already widely accepted" is false, of course; only a very small fraction of reliable sources on the topic even mention "pallywood," and to a one these do so only in passing. We follow the reliable sources when sketching the parameters of a topic. We don't gerrymander the available reliable sources about a given topic (alleged Arab media manipulation) so that only those that mention a fringe term in passing are included, and then promote that fringe-term-mentioned-in-passing to an "equivalent neologism" for the purposes of Wikipedia. I trust this is all clear?--G-Dett 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article isn't about Landes' video, his blog, his company, or anything of that sort. Saying that Landes can't be cited as a reliable source because of his relation to the topic is like saying that Drexler can't be cited authoritatively in nanotechnology. Circular reasoning is very different from tautology, and I don't see how I'm guilty of either.
- That said, I think your suggestion of renaming to Alleged Arab media manipulation in the Arab-Israel conflict sounds fair. I still think that Pallywood is independently notable as a neologism, and don't have a problem with the article as it stands, but I wouldn't object to renaming as long as a redirect is preserved. — xDanielx T/C 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're trying to establish the notability of Landes' youtube video by citing his blog, and meanwhile trying to establish the notability of his blog by citing his qualifications – which consist solely of his youtube video. The reasoning is tautological, that is to say, completely circular. Your suggestion that the article could be moved to Allegations of news events staged by Palesteinian and other cameramen, however, stumbles into the general vicinity of good sense, though it would need to be something more like Alleged Arab media manipulation in the Arab-Israel conflict, since the most notable sources focus on examples from the 2006 Lebanon War. "Pallywood" could certainly be a redirect, but your claim that this "equivalent neologism is already widely accepted" is false, of course; only a very small fraction of reliable sources on the topic even mention "pallywood," and to a one these do so only in passing. We follow the reliable sources when sketching the parameters of a topic. We don't gerrymander the available reliable sources about a given topic (alleged Arab media manipulation) so that only those that mention a fringe term in passing are included, and then promote that fringe-term-mentioned-in-passing to an "equivalent neologism" for the purposes of Wikipedia. I trust this is all clear?--G-Dett 21:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realize that Richard Landes played a significant role in popularizing the term -- I don't know why you're assuming otherwise. This does not make him unqualified to comment on a subject in which he has expertise. I suppose we could rename the article to Allegations of news events staged by Palesteinian and other cameramen or something similar, but I'm not really convinced that we should do so given that the equivalent neologism is already widely accepted. — xDanielx T/C 20:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- This is a good illustration of what I'm talking about, how the article's meager set of sources have become a set of funhouse mirrors. Daniel is impressed that an entire site is "specifically dedicated to the subject," not realizing that he's talking about the blog of the guy who made the youtube video and coined the term in the first place. We're in a tiny tin-can echo chamber here. Daniel does however make an extremely important distinction: "Only a handful of the references give substantial attention to the term "Pallywood," but most (all?) of them give substantial attention to the subject . Very well. Let's cover the subject, not an obscure slangword by which the subject is known among a small segment of the right-wing blogosphere.--G-Dett 14:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- keep - per my comments on the previous discussion. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I nominated this article for deletion back in February. Although it's improved somewhat since then, it's still deeply flawed. The article tries to do two things: to define the term "Pallywood" and document its usage, and to discuss the amateur video of the same name by Richard Landes. There's certainly evidence that the term has been used frequently in the blogosphere, but a Lexis-Nexis search finds only a handful of uses in the mainstream media. We're not in the business of defining blog slang. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. As for Landes' video, Lexis-Nexis finds only two mainstream sources referring to it: it's mentioned briefly in a UK Daily Telegraph article on online conspiracy theorists, and equally briefly in a National Post article (not online). It doesn't appear to have been the subject of any reviews, and there are no articles specifically about it. Assuming (very generously) that a home-made video can be considered a film, Wikipedia:Notability (films) applies; Landes' video doesn't meet any of the criteria set out there. -- ChrisO 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep based on what gidonb said. I also agree with Briangotts that I don't like it is a silly argument88.155.196.46 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- IDONTLIKEIT sure is a silly argument. An even sillier one is "IDONTLIKEIT is a silly argument" when no one has advanced an IDONTLIKEIT argument. That's called a strawman fallacy; look it up, and try to avoid it in future.--G-Dett 14:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or merge into something more notable. Internet sites and blogs, like many things that Wikipedia articles are proposed for, are here today and gone tomorrow. Pallywood... that is a great title, isn't it? Mandsford 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As a film, it spectacularly fails WP:NOTFILM; since the rest of the article is based on that film, it appears to be completely OR. No evidence of the term appearing in mainstream media or society either. Dchall1 15:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, why should this be deleted? I see no compelling arguments for deletion in this page or in previous AfD. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps you could explain how it meets WP:NOTFILM, rather than making an argument-free assertion which the closing administrator would be well-advised to disregard. -- ChrisO 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hand's off my commment, Chris, and let the closing admin take my comment on its merit. The article is not about a film. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment has no merit if it doesn't address the issues. If the article isn't about a film, it's about a term; how is this compatible with WP:DICDEF? -- ChrisO 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why are the two mutually exclusive? The article isn't primarily about a term; it uses a term as its title (reasonable enough, right? most articles do that...) and discusses the concept that that term stands for, as well as giving an explanation of the neologism. Very similar to e-mail, pro-choice, etc. — xDanielx T/C 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment has no merit if it doesn't address the issues. If the article isn't about a film, it's about a term; how is this compatible with WP:DICDEF? -- ChrisO 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hand's off my commment, Chris, and let the closing admin take my comment on its merit. The article is not about a film. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could explain how it meets WP:NOTFILM, rather than making an argument-free assertion which the closing administrator would be well-advised to disregard. -- ChrisO 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I believe Gidonb's "evidence" above, and discussions in the last AfD, show that the subject is reasonably notable. This is not an article about a film, and therefore the notability (or lack thereof) of the film itself is not the determining factor. 6SJ7 19:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- If it's an article about a term, how is it not a dictionary definition? If it's about the video, how does it meet WP:NOTFILM? -- ChrisO 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you let editors make comments unencumbered by yours? The NOTFILM argument has been addressed already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- And what about the DICDEF argument? -- ChrisO 21:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Chris, surely you have read the policy pages you are citing? WP:NOTFILM applies to films; Pallywood is not a film. WP:DICDEF applies to Stubs with no possibility for expansion; the article in question is already well beyond a definitional stub. Pallywood is not a dictionary definition any more than pro-choice, e-mail, etc. — xDanielx T/C 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Until there's a separate notability guideline for youtube videos, WP:NOTFILM is the appropriate guideline. This article has indeed been expanded beyond a definition, but that expansion has been illegitimate, hence the AfD.--G-Dett 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The article is not about a youtube video. The article is about alleged Arab manipulation of media reports, which is described using the word Pallywood, a neologism which was partially popularized by Richard Landes, the person primarily responsible for providing the website www.seconddraft.com, which happened to mirror one of its videos on Youtube. — xDanielx T/C 23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Until there's a separate notability guideline for youtube videos, WP:NOTFILM is the appropriate guideline. This article has indeed been expanded beyond a definition, but that expansion has been illegitimate, hence the AfD.--G-Dett 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't you let editors make comments unencumbered by yours? The NOTFILM argument has been addressed already. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- In its definition of "significant coverage," WP:N requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail," which neither the article's existing five or six reliable sources nor Gidonb's two or three new ones actually do. The subject in each instance is alleged Arab media manipulation, which is not known as "pallywood" by any reliable sources. There are many sources on alleged Arab media manipulation; only a small fraction of these mention "pallywood," and in every instance these few do so only once and in passing. Our article turns the reliable sources on their heads, needlessly narrows down the information that we can use for a potentially interesting article, promotes an obscure slangword for a fairly common and notable topic, and in the process violates WP:N and WP:UNDUE.--G-Dett 20:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- not known as "pallywood" by any reliable sources - How about these 34? As has been said, most of these articles do not go into depth about the origins of the term. But they do not need to -- the policy is that sources must give substantial attention to the subject of an article, not the name of an article. You won't find articles discussing the names List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks or List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references. You won't find many articles giving substantial attention to terms like pro-choice either. Should we delete those? — xDanielx T/C 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand your distinction between an article's subject and its name, except as a kind of semantic game. If you're writing an article about alleged Arab media manipulation, you need a neutral and widely accepted name for it, and "Pallywood" ain't it. If, on the other hand, you're writing an article on the slangword and youtube video "Pallywood," you need reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail, and you don't have these. Your confusion about the distinction between these things is symptomatic of the article's illegitimate conflation of them.--G-Dett 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think we've discussed the point ad nauseum. This is turning into a proof by assertion contest. — xDanielx T/C 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I do not understand your distinction between an article's subject and its name, except as a kind of semantic game. If you're writing an article about alleged Arab media manipulation, you need a neutral and widely accepted name for it, and "Pallywood" ain't it. If, on the other hand, you're writing an article on the slangword and youtube video "Pallywood," you need reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail, and you don't have these. Your confusion about the distinction between these things is symptomatic of the article's illegitimate conflation of them.--G-Dett 22:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- not known as "pallywood" by any reliable sources - How about these 34? As has been said, most of these articles do not go into depth about the origins of the term. But they do not need to -- the policy is that sources must give substantial attention to the subject of an article, not the name of an article. You won't find articles discussing the names List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks or List of "All your base are belong to us" computer and video game references. You won't find many articles giving substantial attention to terms like pro-choice either. Should we delete those? — xDanielx T/C 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If it's an article about a term, how is it not a dictionary definition? If it's about the video, how does it meet WP:NOTFILM? -- ChrisO 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I find it pretty odd that someone talks about this beying unnotable. Google gives off 187000 finds and Hezbollywood, which is a derivative gives off 28,700. Seriously, how can this be considered not notable enough for an article about how one POV describes the other sides media manipulation? Eternalsleeper 22:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes, and "dingleberry" ("A delinquent partial turd which grasps anal shrubbery causing brownish crust to accumulate in one's boxers," hat tip to UrbanDictionary) gets 175,000. Notable? Unfiltered google results are a guide to the collective cultural id; without further scrutiny, they aren't a guide to encyclopedic notability. Here are some relevant acts of further scrutiny: (1) of the first 20 Google results for "Pallywood," four are links to Youtube guy's blog, one is to the WP article, and the other fifteen are to blogs linking to Youtube guy's blog or to his Youtube video. None are to reliable sources. Tin-pot echo chamber. (2) Move on to Google Books or Google Scholar, and the hits plummet from 187,000 to 0 and 1, respectively, with the 1 being the URL of Youtube guy's blog in an article footnote. (3) Googling "pallywood AND wikipedia" gets you 49,300 hits. The first seven are versions of this article or deletion debates about it. After that comes usenet-thread links to this article, an article about "What's Hot on Wikipedia," and so on.
- #3 is pretty damning. We are here to inform – not to promote, and not to rechristen notable subjects with obscure terms dredged up from the blogosphere. Alleged Arab media manipulation in the Arab-Israeli conflict is a notable topic; reliable sources – not blogs – have written about it. Write an article about it, mention the video and the blogslang "pallywood" in a single sentence (like the few reliable sources for the current article do), and make Pallywood a redirect if you like. You'll have far more reliable sources at your disposal, and a more interesting article that also happens to comply with policy.--G-Dett 00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- #1 is nothing unusual. Youtube, Wikipedia, etc. have high PageRanks, so it's not surprising that a couple of the first 20 Google hits link to those sites. It has been shown that "Pallywood" as a neologism is widely accepted by reliable sources, including 60 minutes, etc. Whether the first 20 Ghits are reliable sources is debatable, and your summary of them is far from neutral, but in any case looking only at the top 20 hits means confusing PageRank with page reliability. #2 is also unsurprising, as recent neologisms rarely make their way into books. It doesn't make much sense to say that one (cherry-picked) area of the internet doesn't cover the topic of Pallywood through reliable sources, therefore no reliable sources exist on the topic - you're ignoring a plentitude of reliable sources that do exists, e.g. here. I don't see why #3 is "damning." If anything, the fact that Palywood is covered on 7 (perhaps more than I'm not noticing) linguistic subsets of Wikipedia is telling. If you actually dig deep into the results, you'll notice that in the majority of cases "wikipedia" is only found as a passing reference in a largely unrelated page -- often it's a link to a different Wikipedia article. It's not news that Wikipedia has acquired a prominent position in the Internet as a provider of information. And still, there are 137,000 hits which do not as much as reference Wikipedia at all, so you really can't attribute the large number of hits to Wikipedia's coverage. — xDanielx T/C 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- What a boatload of evasive sophistry, Daniel. Lexis-Nexis, Google Scholar, Google Books, and the historical databases of every major national newspaper in the U.S. together give us a pretty comprehensive picture of what constitutes reliable sources in Wikipedia, and there's virtually nothing on Pallywood. Period. What few reliable sources have been found anywhere mention the term only in passing in a single sentence. The point of looking at twenty google hits is that I can't look at 187,000. If you want me to go through fifty, I will. If you think there's some quality stuff in there, some indication of it ought to show up in the first 50 hits, and I invite you to find it – in there among the dingleberries. Blogs are not RS's; my biases have nothing to do with that. Of course neologisms make their way into books, what ever are you talking about. They make their way into journals, magazines, and newspapers first, of course, and that's where Lexis-Nexis and Google Scholar come in, with their measly four hits with passing mentions. The 48,000 Wikipedia hits is damning partly because of the promotional aspect I've referred to, but also because it's an indication of how we're slumming it with a bunch of blogs and usenet threads, instead of following the reliable sources, as is customary Wikipedia practice. Finally, there's a distinction between a reliable source mentioning "pallywood" as a blogword and accepting it as a neologism; we've found a half dozen examples of the former and zero examples of the latter. And if you can direct me to anything about "pallywood" on 60 minutes, I'd be grateful, but I think you've been confused by the opening half minute of the Youtube video.--G-Dett 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Do you understand the process involved in getting a paper published in a high-profile academic journal? It doesn't happen overnight. You email someone a draft of your article, they tell you they want a citation for some particular assertion, you email them back a revised copy, they tell you the citation needs a page number, you add a page number and bounce it again, they tell you the reference is unsatisfactory. You find a proper reference and get back to them a month later -- they say okay, now find a reference for some other statement. This is (one reason) why scholastic journals are not used as reporters of current events. By the time a current affairs-focused article were published, the affairs would not be current. Lexis-Nexis, JOSTOR, Google Scholar, Google Books, and similar databases are places you go to find book reviews, law reviews, scientific research reports, and the like. Political articles in these journals tend to have historical foci. You don't go to Lexis to learn about recent allegations of media manipulation; you go somewhere like Google News, which has plenty of reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject.
- Anyway, it makes no sense to evaluate the notability of an article based on sources found in one particular area of the Internet. Reliable sources have been given; pointing out that none of these sources came from Google Books doesn't contribute anything to the question of notability. — xDanielx T/C 03:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the process involved in submitting articles to academic journals; do you know the fallacy of the excluded middle? Between the peaks of peer-review scholarly journals and the sea of blog-sludge represented by those G-hits is the vast continent of what constitutes ordinary reliable sources on Wikipedia – The New York Times, the New Republic, the New York Review of Books, Atlantic Monthly, and so on, on and on, all of which turn articles around pretty quickly and none of which want anything to do with "pallywood." I don't know where you've gotten the idea that Google Books and Lexis-Nexis are devoted to peer-review material; they are not. The former is indiscriminate, though it's relatively new and not yet anywhere near complete; the latter on the other hand is a comprehensive database of everything published in every major newspaper and magazine in the last twenty years or so – scholars use it because it's comprehensive, not because the materials it compiles are scholarly. "Reliable sources have been given," yes, five or six of them, but they don't accept or endorse the slang word "pallywood" as a term for the phenomenon of media manipulation, nor do they directly address the slangword itself in detail, as WP:N would require. If this is an article about alleged media manipulation, it needs an WP:NPOV title; if it's about the slangword, it needs reliable sources establishing the word's notability by directly addressing it in detail; if it's about the internet video, it needs to meet WP:NOTFILM. Pallywood fails on all counts. That doesn't mean the word has no place on Wikipedia; it deserves on Wikipedia what it gets in the reliable sources – a passing mention in an article on alleged media manipulation. You've now moved on to demanding a negative proof, which is another fallacy; you're pointing to that big undifferentiated mass of Google hits and saying there must be something of value in it, and challenging me to prove otherwise.--G-Dett 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- To answer your question, yes, logic and philosophy have always been interests of mine. Anyway, I've explained why I think the reliable sources discovered which give substantial attention to the subject and use the neologism freely do not need to give detailed attention to the trivial creation of the neologism itself. That is what the AfD comes down to -- if I am right, the article should be kept; if I am wrong, the article should be renamed or possibly deleted (I think consensus agrees that the concept is notable, but that's not for me to decide). — xDanielx T/C 04:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the process involved in submitting articles to academic journals; do you know the fallacy of the excluded middle? Between the peaks of peer-review scholarly journals and the sea of blog-sludge represented by those G-hits is the vast continent of what constitutes ordinary reliable sources on Wikipedia – The New York Times, the New Republic, the New York Review of Books, Atlantic Monthly, and so on, on and on, all of which turn articles around pretty quickly and none of which want anything to do with "pallywood." I don't know where you've gotten the idea that Google Books and Lexis-Nexis are devoted to peer-review material; they are not. The former is indiscriminate, though it's relatively new and not yet anywhere near complete; the latter on the other hand is a comprehensive database of everything published in every major newspaper and magazine in the last twenty years or so – scholars use it because it's comprehensive, not because the materials it compiles are scholarly. "Reliable sources have been given," yes, five or six of them, but they don't accept or endorse the slang word "pallywood" as a term for the phenomenon of media manipulation, nor do they directly address the slangword itself in detail, as WP:N would require. If this is an article about alleged media manipulation, it needs an WP:NPOV title; if it's about the slangword, it needs reliable sources establishing the word's notability by directly addressing it in detail; if it's about the internet video, it needs to meet WP:NOTFILM. Pallywood fails on all counts. That doesn't mean the word has no place on Wikipedia; it deserves on Wikipedia what it gets in the reliable sources – a passing mention in an article on alleged media manipulation. You've now moved on to demanding a negative proof, which is another fallacy; you're pointing to that big undifferentiated mass of Google hits and saying there must be something of value in it, and challenging me to prove otherwise.--G-Dett 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- What a boatload of evasive sophistry, Daniel. Lexis-Nexis, Google Scholar, Google Books, and the historical databases of every major national newspaper in the U.S. together give us a pretty comprehensive picture of what constitutes reliable sources in Wikipedia, and there's virtually nothing on Pallywood. Period. What few reliable sources have been found anywhere mention the term only in passing in a single sentence. The point of looking at twenty google hits is that I can't look at 187,000. If you want me to go through fifty, I will. If you think there's some quality stuff in there, some indication of it ought to show up in the first 50 hits, and I invite you to find it – in there among the dingleberries. Blogs are not RS's; my biases have nothing to do with that. Of course neologisms make their way into books, what ever are you talking about. They make their way into journals, magazines, and newspapers first, of course, and that's where Lexis-Nexis and Google Scholar come in, with their measly four hits with passing mentions. The 48,000 Wikipedia hits is damning partly because of the promotional aspect I've referred to, but also because it's an indication of how we're slumming it with a bunch of blogs and usenet threads, instead of following the reliable sources, as is customary Wikipedia practice. Finally, there's a distinction between a reliable source mentioning "pallywood" as a blogword and accepting it as a neologism; we've found a half dozen examples of the former and zero examples of the latter. And if you can direct me to anything about "pallywood" on 60 minutes, I'd be grateful, but I think you've been confused by the opening half minute of the Youtube video.--G-Dett 02:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- #1 is nothing unusual. Youtube, Wikipedia, etc. have high PageRanks, so it's not surprising that a couple of the first 20 Google hits link to those sites. It has been shown that "Pallywood" as a neologism is widely accepted by reliable sources, including 60 minutes, etc. Whether the first 20 Ghits are reliable sources is debatable, and your summary of them is far from neutral, but in any case looking only at the top 20 hits means confusing PageRank with page reliability. #2 is also unsurprising, as recent neologisms rarely make their way into books. It doesn't make much sense to say that one (cherry-picked) area of the internet doesn't cover the topic of Pallywood through reliable sources, therefore no reliable sources exist on the topic - you're ignoring a plentitude of reliable sources that do exists, e.g. here. I don't see why #3 is "damning." If anything, the fact that Palywood is covered on 7 (perhaps more than I'm not noticing) linguistic subsets of Wikipedia is telling. If you actually dig deep into the results, you'll notice that in the majority of cases "wikipedia" is only found as a passing reference in a largely unrelated page -- often it's a link to a different Wikipedia article. It's not news that Wikipedia has acquired a prominent position in the Internet as a provider of information. And still, there are 137,000 hits which do not as much as reference Wikipedia at all, so you really can't attribute the large number of hits to Wikipedia's coverage. — xDanielx T/C 00:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - clearly a notable subject considering the evidence of how many sites use it. Hmmm Why would anyone suggest deleting it if not for the sake of POV whitewashing of the phenomenon? Kuratowski's Ghost 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- For the reasons stated above, which you haven't read.--G-Dett 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another personal attack by G-Dett. 6SJ7 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- User:G-Dett has amply demonstrated her open-mindedness, careful thought, significant research, general literacy and preparedness to explain herself at considerable length in a very readable fashion. It would be nice if you were willing or able to do the same thing with questions aimed at your own contribution (above). PalestineRemembered 09:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another personal attack by G-Dett. 6SJ7 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the reasons stated above, which you haven't read.--G-Dett 00:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Meets notability criteria. Bigglovetalk 00:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC) (by the way, how come nobody badgered me about MY keep vote??? Everyone else got badgered....I feel left out :=( Bigglovetalk 00:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - yes, it is WP:NOTFILM, and neither is the recently featured The Bus Uncle. Rather it is notable, if only slightly, but dozens of media references are certainly adequate for anyone but the strictest deletionist. TewfikTalk 08:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- As this is the second comment attempting to peg Pallywood's notability to Bus uncle's, it's worth pointing out that the only thing the two videos have in common is their media format. Bus uncle was a major pop cultural sensation which has made stars of its non-actors and elicited hundreds of reliable-source articles that "address it directly in detail." The two or three reliable sources that mention the video Pallywood, by contrast, do so only in passing, typically in about the eighth paragraph of an article on something else.--G-Dett 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Editors have pointed to Bus Uncle because of the argument posed by yourself and others that Pallywood should be deleted per WP:NOTFILM. What you now point to is an issue of general notability and an argument that there are not sufficient mentions in media etc., which is a point that has itself been addressed by others here at length. TewfikTalk 06:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- As this is the second comment attempting to peg Pallywood's notability to Bus uncle's, it's worth pointing out that the only thing the two videos have in common is their media format. Bus uncle was a major pop cultural sensation which has made stars of its non-actors and elicited hundreds of reliable-source articles that "address it directly in detail." The two or three reliable sources that mention the video Pallywood, by contrast, do so only in passing, typically in about the eighth paragraph of an article on something else.--G-Dett 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per xDanielx. jossi's comments are also spot on. This really is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I would also point out that if the nominator had actually had strong arguments for deletion, she wouldn't have had to write a book-length nom peppered with personal attacks. <<-armon->> 11:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wrote a "book-length" policy argument so that even reflexively partisan editors, provided they were literate and honest, couldn't claim it was WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--G-Dett 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Feeling the love. I'm hoping that at some stage you'll realize how self-discrediting the ad hom is. <<-armon->> 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ad hominem doesn't mean a brusque or bruising argument (or even an outright insulting one), and the injunction against it has nothing to do with parlor-room politeness, or the moral imperative to suffer fools and charlatans gladly. Rather, ad hominem is a logical fallacy which – exactly like its counterpart, the argument from authority – presents the validity of an argument as a function of the person making it. Those who dismiss my detailed policy arguments out of hand because they think, based either on speculation about or knowledge of my political views, that deep down I just don't like Pallywood, are blending the ad hominem fallacy with the strawman fallacy, and the joint effect is deeply crippling to serious discussion. Pointing out such crippling fallacies can be bruising to those in their thrall, and while you lick your wounds you have my sympathies, but the above is the above.--G-Dett 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...that must be the case, because there's no possibliblity that those who disagree with you aren't doing it out of bad faith or stupidity. <<-armon->> 15:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another strawman. Gidonb has disagreed with me in obvious good faith and very intelligently. So has Daniel, though I think he makes some mistakes along the way, which I've vigorously engaged. But the claim that I've made an IDONTLIKEIT argument does not merit vigorous engagement, or even the assumption of good faith.--G-Dett 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well then the problem appears to be your self-assesment of your arguments. You forget that I'd read your debates with Gidonb and Daniel and found your position to be very weak. This, and your hostility to the subject, leads me to the conclusion that it is, in effect, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. <<-armon->> 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK, Armon, let's keep working on this. What exactly is it that I don't like?--G-Dett 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well then the problem appears to be your self-assesment of your arguments. You forget that I'd read your debates with Gidonb and Daniel and found your position to be very weak. This, and your hostility to the subject, leads me to the conclusion that it is, in effect, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. <<-armon->> 16:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yet another strawman. Gidonb has disagreed with me in obvious good faith and very intelligently. So has Daniel, though I think he makes some mistakes along the way, which I've vigorously engaged. But the claim that I've made an IDONTLIKEIT argument does not merit vigorous engagement, or even the assumption of good faith.--G-Dett 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- ...that must be the case, because there's no possibliblity that those who disagree with you aren't doing it out of bad faith or stupidity. <<-armon->> 15:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ad hominem doesn't mean a brusque or bruising argument (or even an outright insulting one), and the injunction against it has nothing to do with parlor-room politeness, or the moral imperative to suffer fools and charlatans gladly. Rather, ad hominem is a logical fallacy which – exactly like its counterpart, the argument from authority – presents the validity of an argument as a function of the person making it. Those who dismiss my detailed policy arguments out of hand because they think, based either on speculation about or knowledge of my political views, that deep down I just don't like Pallywood, are blending the ad hominem fallacy with the strawman fallacy, and the joint effect is deeply crippling to serious discussion. Pointing out such crippling fallacies can be bruising to those in their thrall, and while you lick your wounds you have my sympathies, but the above is the above.--G-Dett 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Feeling the love. I'm hoping that at some stage you'll realize how self-discrediting the ad hom is. <<-armon->> 14:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote a "book-length" policy argument so that even reflexively partisan editors, provided they were literate and honest, couldn't claim it was WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--G-Dett 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the references to The Bus Uncle are so clearly off-base that it's difficult to [{WP:AGF]]. That article references dozens of articles in WP:RS which treat the subject in detail; 'Irate HK man unlikely Web hero' from CNN, 'When Life Makes You Cry Uncle' from The Washington Post, 'Three men beat up Hong Kong's Bus Uncle' from the AP, etc etc. Pallywood, and the Google News searches referenced here, provide only a handful of passing mentions in good sources, such as 'as one American academic put it — artfully staged "Pallywood" theater.' WP:NEO tells us that "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term ... Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." (em mine) Eleland 12:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Also relevant from WP:NEO: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate...Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." (emph. added)--G-Dett 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:NEO guideline has been tossed around a lot recently by a handful of editors, and I think it's reasonable to say that it errs heavily on the deletionist side of things. It also makes some rather exhorbitant generalizations (beginning with the title, the neutral renaming of which was reverted), and the rationale expressed in the current version just doesn't apply to this article (and many other neologisms):
- The first is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism are inappropriate. The article in question does not qualify as "simply attempting to define a neologism," as has been explained. Zero relevance to the article in question, as well as the large majority of neologism articles on WP.
- The second reason is that articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. This does indeed apply to this article (though per WP:SENSE it's safe to assume that this mention was indeed the first reference to "Pallywood"). Still, the logic is plainly flawed. At most it justifies removing information on the origin of a neologism like this one -- not at all a reason to delete an article.
- In a nutshell, it's a pretty good example of the problems with WP policy pages. The reality is that if we can reach anything close to a rough consensus on this AfD (which has drawn a good amount of participation), or a clear lack of consensus, then we will have overwhelmed the extent to which WP:NEO is a fair representation of consensus. — xDanielx T/C 05:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The WP:NEO guideline has been tossed around a lot recently by a handful of editors, and I think it's reasonable to say that it errs heavily on the deletionist side of things. It also makes some rather exhorbitant generalizations (beginning with the title, the neutral renaming of which was reverted), and the rationale expressed in the current version just doesn't apply to this article (and many other neologisms):
- Also relevant from WP:NEO: "Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case. There are several reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate...Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." (emph. added)--G-Dett 13:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Section Break
- Keep. It is notable enough; the article cites reliable sources.Biophys 14:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- What evidence of notability exists? What reliable sources are cited for more than a trivial passing mention? Eleland 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than badgering keep voters, why don't you read the page. <<-armon->> 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indulge me and answer the question. And I thought this was a discussion, not a vote. Eleland 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Based on some of the threads above (not this one by itself) I would say this AfD is closer to an inquisition than a discussion at this point. 6SJ7 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indulge me and answer the question. And I thought this was a discussion, not a vote. Eleland 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reply. You want some evidence? This is very simple. The article cites 16 reliable sources, and provides a number of other links "for further reading". According to my best judgment, all these references/sources are relevant. Notable subject is something described in several publications which are independent on the source. This is clearly the case.Biophys 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply. Well, not exactly. The references contain seven indisputable reliable sources (the International Herald Tribune, the Boston Globe, the Daily Telegraph, the Toronto Star, the National Post, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, and Arutz Sheva. Another possibly reliable source is The Mackenzie Institute, a self-published website regarded by some as a "think tank." The remaining eight consists of four links to Landes' blog, one usenet thread, a Jewish World Review article that never mentions "pallywood," a statement from a partisan lobby group's website (Honestreporting.com), and a NYT link to the aforementioned Herald Tribune article, dressed up to look like a separate source. Of the 7 clearly reliable sources, none has more than a sentence or two in passing about "pallywood," in most instances late in the article (I do not know the contents of the Arutz Sheva broadcast). The Mackenzie Institute "newsletter" likewise mentions it once. Not counting the Landes blogposts, only the Honestreporting.com statement, which is very dubious as a reliable source, deals with "pallywood" in any detail. We're looking at a sum total of about 100-150 words dedicated to "pallywood" by reliable sources. WP:N's definition of "significant coverage" requires that sources "address the subject directly in detail," and it specifically describes such passing mentions as "plainly trivial." Alleged media manipulation is a notable topic, but "Pallywood" ain't the name for it, and this ain't the article.--G-Dett 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply.Assuming that you are right, seven outside "indisputable reliable sources" (as you said), which discuss this Pallywood, are more than enough to justify its notability.Biophys 15:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- You don't need to assume I'm right, just check the sources. You might also read the notability guideline you're referring to, which decribes these seven sources' passing mentions as "plainly trivial."--G-Dett 03:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Rather than badgering keep voters, why don't you read the page. <<-armon->> 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- What evidence of notability exists? What reliable sources are cited for more than a trivial passing mention? Eleland 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Highly notable concept. There is no way this article should be deleted. It is also a very neutral article that gives fair representation of palestinian propaganda.--SefringleTalk 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete: Non notable. Term not in use outside pro-israeli activism. Inexistent in mainstream media or serious political analysis. Presented as reality rather than political punditry thus NPOV.--Burgas00 14:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for preference, as neologism with insufficient sources - the only RS media sources mention the movie only in passing. Failing which, move and redirect to Allegations of Palestinian Media Manipulation (or Allegations that the Media is a Global Palestinian Conspiracy?) which is broadly what this article is about. Hornplease 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There are plenty of evidence in the article that establish it as a notable concept. -- Karl Meier 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would suggest that that assertion in the absence of any argument countering, or even appearing to take into account, statements made earlier about the actual relevance of the 'evidence' in the article, is not really helpful.Hornplease 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- As opposed to, say, the assertion that the article is a "neologism with insufficient source", which equally does not take into account, or even appear to take into account, the evidence taht there are sufficient sources? Mr. Hicks The III 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Five edits you have, the second of which is to this page. Exactly whose sockpuppet are you? 129.170.117.187 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a statement, from an anon IP, from which the above is the very first edit. Here's a wiki article for you to read. Mr. Hicks The III 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- As Tevye said, you're right, and you're right too. Hornplease 21:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Quite a statement, from an anon IP, from which the above is the very first edit. Here's a wiki article for you to read. Mr. Hicks The III 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- There are 'sufficient' sources - in number, perhaps. Its just that the sources aren't really sufficient support for the claim that this is notable. I thought that was clear- I was pointing out that the above statement was made without taking into account the remarks made before it, whereas mine did. Whatever. I don't know why I'm explaining myself to a sock. Hornplease 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Five edits you have, the second of which is to this page. Exactly whose sockpuppet are you? 129.170.117.187 20:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- As opposed to, say, the assertion that the article is a "neologism with insufficient source", which equally does not take into account, or even appear to take into account, the evidence taht there are sufficient sources? Mr. Hicks The III 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I would suggest that that assertion in the absence of any argument countering, or even appearing to take into account, statements made earlier about the actual relevance of the 'evidence' in the article, is not really helpful.Hornplease 18:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to the Richard Landes article. It should not be too hard to find a reliable source establishing Landes as the creator of the film and the neologism, and Landes' own publications could be used to support a definition of the term, thus we can document its meaning there. I tried to find more reliable sources for the term, but unfortunately they are all as G-Dett says: they only mention Pallywood in reference to the film itself, or in passing. Perhaps in the future, the film or the term will be more popular, and at that point we can make an article about it. 192.18.1.36 17:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The ample evidence suggests notability. No valid reason to remove. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Could you back that up a bit? Not a vote, and all that. Hornplease 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pallywood#Notes, Pallywood#Further_reading. -- Karl Meier 11:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you back that up a bit in the light of the concerns raised about these so-called 'notes' earlier? Not a vote, and all that. Hornplease 12:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- The concept has as I pointed out above been used and/or discussed my a large number of WP:RS, and that makes it notable. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that has been repeatedly been brought forward here, has already been addressed by other editors. -- Karl Meier 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also as stated above about RSes, "their subject is alleged Arab media manipulation, and that they mention "pallywood" in passing?" Given that, the RSes hardly discuss the subject directly in detail. Which is why Humus' comment was hardly illuminating. Incidentally, I don't think an argument that appeals to our basic notability criteria and examines all the sources amounts to IDONTLIKEIT. Specially since most people agree that a related article should exist. Hornplease 17:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you back that up a bit? Not a vote, and all that. Hornplease 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I am open to renaming it, though. The article was originally conceived to cover examples of alleged media fraud and news fabrication and not be limited to those examples in which the term "Pallywood" was mentioned. Editors who didn't like this then argued only those examples that used the term "Pallywood" could be listed, and now we are here. It is indeed notable that several important news items (Mohammad al-Dura, the battle of Jenin, etc.) are subject to criticism based on fraud and deception; and that the several other examples illustrate the possibility of a pattern here. As for the usenet reference, this was only intended to show that the term was in use before Landes titled his film with it. --Leifern 08:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I've sat watching the discussion, but it would still appear that the "film" is completely non-notable, regular use of the word is rare or very rare and regular discussion of the word (ie secondary sources required for inclusion) is non-existent other than what we've done for it. We may need an article on Anti-Israel media distortion in the Middle East, but this is not the title for it. I doubt the neologism or "film" Pallywood would merit more than a very small mention in such an article. PalestineRemembered 10:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Worthwhile article, well sourced, no valid reason to delete.--Mantanmoreland 14:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well-scourced, clearly notable article as has been shown repeatedly above. Hi G-Dett, Eleland, Burgas and PR. Kyaa the Catlord 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious keep per above: Sourced and notable. Poor judgement on nominator's part (basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Really? You think so? Have you considered reading all the various reasons given above by the nominator and several others why that is not true, responding to that specific allegation? No? Oh. Well, much easier to accuse everyone else of bad judgment.Perhaps it would be more useful if you responded to the specific points raised above, rather than repeat an allegation already responded to. Hornplease 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep Its not the greatest article I've ever read, but Pallywood is a real phenomenon and the sources cited in the article are reliable. I think the portmanteau is an obnoxious one, but I have heard it used in real life. Perhaps the article should focus more on actual cases of Pallywood as opposed to the definition and use of the portmanteau, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. --GHcool 01:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- So you would prefer moving it to one of the titles I suggest above? (The serious one, not the parody?) Hornplease 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It seems the discussion is now tending toward a move of the article to a new name concerning propaganda. I support
the movedeleting Pallywood. It seems to me that the choice is between a neutral descriptive title (e.g. Allegations of Palestinian Media Manipulation) and a thought-terminating cliché (Pallywood). The latter belongs in the blogosphere. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC) — Rob C. alias Alarob 01:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)- The more notable term is pallywood, not palestinian Media Manipulation. So I oppose the move.--SefringleTalk 06:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose the move to "Allegations of Palestinian Media Manipulation," but would support the move to Palestinian media manipulation or some similar title that makes it clear that the "allegations" are true. This isn't a debated issue. Palestinians actually do manipulate the media and we have objective proof of this. --GHcool 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- GHCool, everyone manipulates the media. Here is the public record of a scholarly conference in Israel devoted to discussing the best way to manipulate the media. What is being alleged is not spin or PR, but massive fraud to the point of shooting one's own child just to make the enemy look bad. Eleland 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. When this silly AfD is over (I would be shocked if it weren't kept), we should change the article's name to something more damning than "Palestinian media manipulation," but not as sarcastic as "Pallywood." --GHcool 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Glad we agree that Pallywood is a sarcastic and inappropriate term. I do have some questions about the idea of an article devoted solely to Palestinian manipulation; it would take considerable care and attention to avoid turning it into a POV fork. In addition, some incidents could be more smoothly discussed from both sides in parallel, for example, the Battle of Jenin resulted in extensive accusations of manipulation on both sides. The Israelis accused the Palestinians of fabricating a massacre by deliberately inflating body count estimates, the Palestinians accused the Israelis of hiding a massacre by removing bodies and repeatedly grinding over and crushing bulldozed houses with civilian victims inside. Both of these accusations have been supported at least partially by credible sources, and they really belong in the same article. Eleland 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, but the Pallywood article discusses doesn't only dishonest reporting (which, unfortunately, occurs every day all over the world), but also the deliberate staging of events to fit a political agenda similarly to how a Hollywood producer casts a movie with actors and dresses the set with realistic props and set dressing to maximize emotional impact through a compelling narrative. I've never heard of a case of an Israeli journalist staging a Palestinian suicide attack, but I have heard of Palestinian journalist staging IDF attacks. For the purpose of this AfD, I believe we are in agreement though and issues of the title of the new Pallywood article can be discussed another day on another page. --GHcool 17:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Glad we agree that Pallywood is a sarcastic and inappropriate term. I do have some questions about the idea of an article devoted solely to Palestinian manipulation; it would take considerable care and attention to avoid turning it into a POV fork. In addition, some incidents could be more smoothly discussed from both sides in parallel, for example, the Battle of Jenin resulted in extensive accusations of manipulation on both sides. The Israelis accused the Palestinians of fabricating a massacre by deliberately inflating body count estimates, the Palestinians accused the Israelis of hiding a massacre by removing bodies and repeatedly grinding over and crushing bulldozed houses with civilian victims inside. Both of these accusations have been supported at least partially by credible sources, and they really belong in the same article. Eleland 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. When this silly AfD is over (I would be shocked if it weren't kept), we should change the article's name to something more damning than "Palestinian media manipulation," but not as sarcastic as "Pallywood." --GHcool 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- GHCool, everyone manipulates the media. Here is the public record of a scholarly conference in Israel devoted to discussing the best way to manipulate the media. What is being alleged is not spin or PR, but massive fraud to the point of shooting one's own child just to make the enemy look bad. Eleland 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose the move to "Allegations of Palestinian Media Manipulation," but would support the move to Palestinian media manipulation or some similar title that makes it clear that the "allegations" are true. This isn't a debated issue. Palestinians actually do manipulate the media and we have objective proof of this. --GHcool 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The more notable term is pallywood, not palestinian Media Manipulation. So I oppose the move.--SefringleTalk 06:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non notable. // Liftarn 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Term in widespread use. Obviously meets core policies for inclusion. Obviously controversial. We don't deal with controversy by deleting it. This one is not even vulgar. --SmokeyJoe 11:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable term, documented clearly along with its usage history and examples. -- Gabi S. 16:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note for the closing admin. A number of editors above argue that Pallywood is not about a film or a neologism, but rather about the phenomenon of alleged Palestinian media manipulation; they claim "pallywood" is an acceptable, encyclopedic term for this, one widely used by reliable sources. This argument seemed so self-evidently false to me that I didn't even think to address it in my nom – which focuses solely on notability issues regarding the film and the neologism. Of course "pallywood" is not an acceptable term for the alleged phenomenon: besides violating WP:NPOV, not a single reliable source anywhere uses this term for it. The few reliable sources cited by this article mention, in passing, that Landes and some bloggers use the word, but they don't themselves adopt it. And for each of these reliable sources that mention the word in passing, there are dozens that don't mention it at all. To argue that "pallywood" is the accepted term for this is like arguing that "Zionist entity" is the accepted term for Israel, on the basis that some reliable sources mention the use of the phrase by non-reliable sources. I would hope – and did hope, when writing the nomination – that this argument would be readily understood to be fallacious, even ridiculous.
Secondly, I am troubled by the recurring strawman argument that this is an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Assuming that those advancing this strawman argument are "voting" in good faith (that is, not simply throwing a thin disguise over their own ILIKEIT argument), they do not appear to have understood or engaged the policy and sourcing issues involved. If this is an article about a phenomenon, it needs a title accepted by the reliable sources who have covered it; and no reliable source uses "pallywood." If it's an article about the movie and/or neologism, on the other hand, it needs reliable sources attesting to the notability of either the one or the other. The very small handful of reliable sources that mention "Pallywood" (movie or neologism) do so in passing, in a way that WP:N explicitly defines as "plainly trivial." As for what I like and don't like: I like that Wikipedia includes information about Landes, about the film Pallywood, about the protologism "pallywood" (and who uses it), and about alleged Palestinian media manipulation. I like that a reader who types "pallywood" into our search bar can get to this information. I like that Wikipedia isn't censored. What I don't like is a path to these ends that egregiously violates WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NCON, WP:NEO, and WP:N. Information about the movie, and the blogslang it created, can be moved to Richard Landes, with "Pallywood" as a redirect. Information about alleged Arab/Palestinian media manipulation should be presented in an article of its own. It can mention "pallywood" in passing (like the reliable sources do) and provide a "see also" link to the Landes article. Having a neutral title for the media manipulation article will be a good in its own right, but it will also enable it to grow and become more encyclopedic, since it won't be restricted to sources that happen to mention an obscure slangword in passing.--G-Dett 19:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- We actually have an article Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although it is in a very bad way and almost as POV as this article (the top picture, for example, is of the editorial cartoon of Sharon eating a baby), that would be one possible place to merge this to. Eleland 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Zionist entity analogy is good. Zionist Entity is a pejorative term for Israel. Pallywood is a pejorative term for staged Palestinian propaganda. -- Gabi S. 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And staged Lebanese propaganda, at least according to you. Anyway, the point was not to compare "pallywood" and "Zionist entity" in terms of how nasty and damaging they are as epithets, Gagi – you did understand that, I hope? The point was that they are both non-neutral, non-encyclopedic terms which are not used by reliable sources and so shouldn't be used by Wikipedia. The very phrase "Zionist entity" has occasioned so much discussion and controversy that it's certainly notable enough for an article, but the article is about the phrase, not the country (!). "Pallywood," however, has barely been mentioned by anyone; it's just a marginal bloggy slangword for an alleged phenomenon described in other, decidedly more neutral and professional terms by reliable sources.--G-Dett 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I intent to reply to your claim that there are isn't a single reliable source in the article. My question is did you even look at the article? There are 17 sources in the article, almost all of which use the term pallywood. The topic is definently notable and reliably sourced--SefringleTalk 03:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course I read the article, and have analyzed its sources in detail here. I recommend that you read the article, read the sources, read this discussion, and then return to comment on any or all of these when you're competent to do so.--G-Dett 04:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I looked too. All but two of the sources are journalism, mostly from the web. Of the remaining two, one is a report from the Mackenzie Institute. The other is from an academic monograph on popular culture in Israel -- which seemed impressive until I realized it was only used to supply the adjective "religious-nationalist" to describe the broadcaster Arutz Sheva. It made me wonder how many of the cited journalistic sources actually use the term "Pallywood" at all, even in passing. It's discouraging. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Zionist entity analogy is good. Zionist Entity is a pejorative term for Israel. Pallywood is a pejorative term for staged Palestinian propaganda. -- Gabi S. 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply (again). The article isn't about a neologism, or a video, or Palestinian media manipulation -- it's a combination of all three. Numerous sources have been provided which give substantial attention to Pallywood, including those three elements: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. You seem to interpret the fact that most of these references only name the world "Pallywood" two or three times as an indicator that the coverage is not substantial. That is because the said sources are not excessively interested in etymology. Many of those sources discuss in depth Landes' efforts to expose (alleged) media manipulation through his site www.seconddraft.org; "Pallywood" is just the term Landes uses to describe the practices he crticizes. Article subjects must be independently notable; article titles are meant to be descriptive and are not bound by notability guidelines. An article about Alleged Palestinian media manipulation might be appropriate (though it would probably be redundant with other similar articles), but in its current form, this article is about a somewhat different subject. — xDanielx T/C 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the concept appears to be non-notable. Perhaps the best route is to delete this article and create another one which can be called "Media controversies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". Also, note that Pallywood is more of a misnomer, since "-wood" (consider Bollywood, Lollywood and Tollywood, other portmanteaus of Hollywood) is the name given to popular film industry of a nation/culture. Bless sins 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Bless sins makes a good point about the normal use of "Hollywood" portmanteau words. When I first saw this AfD, I expected to read about a nascent film industry based in some city starting with "Pal-." I was surprised to find that the subject of the article has nothing at all to do with commercial or art films, except in a deeply cynical sense. As supporters of the article have piled on like linebackers, I find myself wondering if part of the intention behind creating buzz for the concept of "Pallywood" is to pre-empt any notion that Palestinian Arabs could have a film culture — or art of any kind — devoted to anything but terrorism and anti-Semitism. If so, then this is propaganda, and it should not be ensconced in Wikipedia under the guise of neutral statements of fact. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Please assume good faith of voters. We aren't here to push a religiously motivated political agenda through Wikipedia. This article documents a notable viewpoint, just as, for example, Holocaust denial does. The viewpoint that Palestinian film culture centers around antisemitism is not neutral by any means, just as the claim that the Nazis never targed Jews specifically is not at all neutral. But that does not prevent Wikipedia from having neutral articles on those subjects. — xDanielx T/C 08:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please XDanielx, try to avoid making analogies with Nazism, it is not useful for this discussion. --Burgas00 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Assuming it is correct, what would be the problem with it being used only in certain segments, like for instance the "pro-Israel blog world" or the "right-wing blogosphere" or whatever? Is there a Wiki rule for all material being mainstream before being considered legitimate? Or is it merely that everything "blogosphere" is dirty? I think one of the strengths of Wikipedia is its ability to document also esoteric material used only in various sub groups of society. What about terms only used by for instance Christians or Muslims (kun) or heavy metal fans, or in Soviet communism (Bourgeois pseudoscience), or in the porn business (fluffer) etc.? or by the "left-wing anti-Israel blogosphere" Rune X2 08:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment: I agree in principle that there is no problem with documenting the existence of such accusations. However, they should be presented as accusations and as part of a wider political position. The term Pallywood as such is a derogative adjective for an alleged phenomenon. It is senseless for it to have a separate article. Why can't it just be merged into Accusations of Palestinian media manipulation, or renamed under such a heading???--Burgas00 14:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio --DarkFalls talk 07:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Access to Music
This is nothing more than an advertisement for a commercial endeavor in violation of WP:SPAM. I found it in Orphaned Articles. The text of the article pretty much comes verbatim from the company's corporate website [61] and its myspace page [62], including an entire section taken from this page. The creator of the article is Martin8770 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), whose only contributions to Wikipedia at the time of this AfD creation have been the creation of this article and three edits thereto, all on 17 July 2007 within ten minutes of each other. I believe that Martin8770 is Martin Smith: Head of Marketing & Design and director of the subject entity's PR campaign. It should be noted that the first part of Martin Smith's telephone number is listed as "07787." What we have here is a WP:COI. Searching with google reveals little other than this company's own website, myspace page, this Wikipedia article and a myriad of other unrelated projects, stores and organizations using the same name. Though the organization's website is chock full of content, there are no references to outside reliable sources that would establish notability. I vote delete. OfficeGirl 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO and (likely) WP:COI. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per above. Tagged. Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 14:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aviva Farber
Non-notable actress with relatively few minor roles listed on IMDb. Doesn't meet the criteria in WP:BIO. Anon IP removed prod.WebHamster 01:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The article needs expanding (on the basis of sources other than IMDB), but the subject appears notable. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I did not found reliable secondary sources to meets WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 22:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: - per nom; does not meet criteria for WP:BIO and WP:NOT.Dudleydooright 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to have enough decent-sized credits in the IMDB. All Hallow's Wraith 07:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep appears notable, named in reviewed movies although I could not find commentary on her. Arguably meets WP:BIO "With significant roles in notable films". Surely is expandable with a little research. --SmokeyJoe 10:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Non-notable. Does every one mentioned in the IMDb database automatically get an article at Wikipedia? What significant roles has she played? Watchingthevitalsigns 11:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Yan Yan Tang
Doesn't assert notability. Refs are unreliale sources. Etc. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I'm inclined to encourage authors to demonstrate notability with sources other than the org's own website. The link to the Ontario Ministry of Education is unhelpful, as it contains no refs to Yan Yan Tang. Surely someone outside the org has taken notice of it in writing? If not, out it goes. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment some coverage from China Radio International [63] about their cooperation with other organisations in a missing persons case. Only other thing I could find was Ming Pao's Toronto edition printing what looks like one of their press releases. [64]. cab 06:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. GreenJoe 20:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- weak delete. Looks real, but no independent source given or easily found, therefore fails Wikipedia:Notability. No other article links to it. --SmokeyJoe 10:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Certified for windows vista
This seems to be a how-to gain certification as a Vista product guide and is not appropriate per WP:NOT. I don't see anything of value to salvage from this article. Metros 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete hot-to, does not appear to be notable on it's own. (Also would need to be moved to "Windows Vista") OSbornarf 02:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Bfigura (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as HOWTO non-notable. Carlosguitar 21:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a HOW-TO. JIP | Talk 08:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I Got Money
PROD was removed without explanation. This is just one track off an album. Maybe if this was a single, it would deserve an article, but individual album tracks aren't notable enough for an article. Spellcast 00:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Not a notable song, but I have to disagree with "individual album tracks aren't notable enough for an article", because that's not always true. --- Realest4Life 01:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Article doesn't assert notability that can't be written on the main album article. Spawn Man 08:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable song. Keb25 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. No sources, no notability and unencylopedic. Seraphim Whipp 21:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 04:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of portable software
I realise I'm probably wasting my time, but our official policy does clearly say Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links". There are a great many websites out there that are intended solely to be software directories, we don't need Wikipedia to be yet another. Also, on a personal note, I hate Wikipedia content that gleefully invites spam and therefore requires constant attention, especially when it is not even vaguely similar to encyclopaedic content. AlistairMcMillan 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of portable applications. AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Vague, fluid, potentially huge, hard to mainatain, provides no context information - portable to what?, how easy it is?, which version?, ... Pavel Vozenilek 01:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, the context is explained right in the lead: Portable software is a class of software that is suitable for use on portable drives such as a USB (thumb) drive or iPod or Palm PDA with "drive mode", although any external hard drive could theoretically be used. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where exactly is the encyclopedic content? How does this not violate our policies on verifiability, or on Wikipedia not being "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links"? AlistairMcMillan 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't follow how this is any more so "a repository of links" than, for example, List of scholastic philosophers -- which WP:LIST uses as an example of what to do! -- or any other list on Wikipedia. Almost all Wikilists are wikilinked, that's the whole point of Wikipedia. WP:NOT#LINK was certainly not intended to forbid lists full of Wikilinks -- and in fact itself links to the guidelines on how to do intenal lists correctly. -- simxp (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where exactly is the encyclopedic content? How does this not violate our policies on verifiability, or on Wikipedia not being "an indiscriminate collection of information" or "a repository of links"? AlistairMcMillan 22:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, the context is explained right in the lead: Portable software is a class of software that is suitable for use on portable drives such as a USB (thumb) drive or iPod or Palm PDA with "drive mode", although any external hard drive could theoretically be used. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 14:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR. Tbo 157talk 12:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete And YOU thought all software was portable. The article explains the definition, but this list is a bad idea. Although usually I don't agree that something is going to be "unmaintainable", and much less with the overworked "it's potentially endless" argument, this list is only going to get larger. The idea seems to be for everyone to expand upon it. The problem with that is that everyone wants to add and move on, but nobody has the time to edit it. Mandsford 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Move This doesn't belong on Wikipedia. But it is a relatively commonly referenced (According to Google, 135 external links to it) resource. Tjbk tjb 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Move", in the peculiar language of Wikipedia, usually means "keep and rename"; not that I'm trying to drum up delete votes, but if it moves, it's just moving to a different address in Wikipediatown. Also, it's better to be unoriginal than original when you're writing an article. Just some of the strange customs around here... Mandsford 01:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete There doesn't seem to have been an attempt to show that the criteria for inclusion have been meet for most/any of the items in the list. (And for good reason, since the definition is rather narrow... any attempt to fufill it would run close to WP:OR). Bfigura (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)See below for changed !vote --Bfigura (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
* Delete. Can the admin that deletes this please copy the page to my userspace? I see red-links I may want to start as articles. Thank you. • Lawrence Cohen 05:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Slight
mergeKeep to portable application. This list is more comprehensive than Category:Portable software & it might be useful to preserve the edit history (and there is that matter of incoming links). The list is very long & deserves cleanup if kept or merged. See also List of portable computer games. The list doesn't look much worse than it did when it was up for deletion last year, so I'm also cautious about such a radical change in consensus. --Karnesky 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)- Given the cleanup, I think most of the legitimate arguments made against the older version are moot. --Karnesky 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, on the grounds that it's more useful as a list than a category since it's arranged by type of software; but remove all non-notable software -- i.e. everything that doesn't have a Wikipedia article, all the red and black links. That should keep out the spam and make it easy to maintain, since non-notable software is usually quickly CSD-A7'd. -- simxp (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ultimately, we could have subcats of portable software & this would obviate the need for the only benefit the list provides (order). --Karnesky 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Changing to keep.Per the above statement that it's better than a category for being able to cover such a diverse nature of software applications, Keep, possibly strong. This just needs trimming to eliminate all the non-notable material and I have begun this. I can see no reason to delete this very useful list. I'll also volunteer to watchlist it to keep 'crap' out going forward. • Lawrence Cohen 14:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I don't remember one of our policies being "useful", could you point me to that page? Also if you are planning to make this page a personal crusade, then perhaps you would like to get some free webspace somewhere else and host/maintain this content elsewhere. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - updated. Please note that I've completely gutted the article of all trivial, red-link, non-linked, non-notable software and spam. Compare these two versions of the article from when I began to now. Again, I happily volunteer to babysit this, and I see a lot of the material that I archived to here in my userspace can be re-added later when sourced with their own articles to make an even better list. Please close as a keep, now. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Many such lists on Wikipedia have commonly been deleted as per WP:NOT#DIR. But you could try creating a category for the subject. Tbo 157talk 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Category:Portable software? • Lawrence Cohen 16:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Many such lists on Wikipedia have commonly been deleted as per WP:NOT#DIR. But you could try creating a category for the subject. Tbo 157talk 16:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In lieu of deletion, could this be simply redirected to Portable software? Simply redirect rather than delete, in case there may be a need to expand it back out later. It is a valid term, which may be searched for. • Lawrence Cohen 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- By all means have a page explaining the term. The list however is not encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but you seem to be arguing, here and above, that lists are inherently unencyclopedic and have no place on Wikipedia. Whilst that is certainly one point of view, it is certainly not Wikipedia policy -- see WP:LIST and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. -- simxp (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- By all means have a page explaining the term. The list however is not encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Super strong delete There doesn't seem to be much of a precedent for classing programs like this (making it a neologism), and pretty much all applications under a certain size (even on Windows) will meet the criteria (making it indiscriminate). Furthermore it's confusing to use such a similar name to "software portability," which is a very well-established and understood concept. Put your energy into making a good distribution kit of useful USB key software, give it a proper name, and if it becomes notable it can have a WP article. Potatoswatter 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Put your energy into making a good distribution kit of useful USB key software, give it a proper name, and if it becomes notable it can have a WP article" -- ...Ummm, could you clarify exactly who you're talking to here? Unless I'm mistaken (and please forgive me if I am), you seem to be implying that concept of a Portable application is a neologism recently dreamt up by a Wikipedia editor to use as some kind of viral marketing for a flash drive distribution kit (!); which I assure you is not the case (Google "portable software", if you don't believe me...). -- simxp (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- And half the results refer to software portability. There are places besides WP to collaborate on something like this. Talking about the history of mini-applications that can be physically carried and loaded at will would be encyclopedic. Attempting to decide which thousand of the millions of such programs are "notable" is not. I'm talking to anyone who adds a link to a list of SW titles. Potatoswatter 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Attempting to decide which thousand of the millions of such programs are "notable" is not" No, of course not. That is something this article shares with, for example, List of people who died young, and many thousands of other such lists. In all such cases, notability and thus inclusion is very easily defined, not by the whim of the list editors, but by whether each item fulfils the criteria at WP:N -- that is, whether each item has a Wikipedia article! (Ideally, of course, that Wikipedia article should mention that the software is portable or comes in a portable edition, with a source, but this is not immediately essential; articles can be edited and sources added). -- simxp (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- And half the results refer to software portability. There are places besides WP to collaborate on something like this. Talking about the history of mini-applications that can be physically carried and loaded at will would be encyclopedic. Attempting to decide which thousand of the millions of such programs are "notable" is not. I'm talking to anyone who adds a link to a list of SW titles. Potatoswatter 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Put your energy into making a good distribution kit of useful USB key software, give it a proper name, and if it becomes notable it can have a WP article" -- ...Ummm, could you clarify exactly who you're talking to here? Unless I'm mistaken (and please forgive me if I am), you seem to be implying that concept of a Portable application is a neologism recently dreamt up by a Wikipedia editor to use as some kind of viral marketing for a flash drive distribution kit (!); which I assure you is not the case (Google "portable software", if you don't believe me...). -- simxp (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep.
"Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic?" --WP:NOT#DIR
I believe this qualifies.--Cb31989 14:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- But only a very very small subset of the software listed here is famous for having a portable version. Firefox is not famous for being portable. Camino is not famous for being portable. Safari is not famous for being portable.
- Heh what do you know. In the web browser section only three links actually point to articles that even mention the software is portable. Given that a significant percentage of the links point to articles that are single paragraph stubs to start with, I wonder how many articles actually mention anything at all about the software being portable. AlistairMcMillan 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- An application that is known to be portable would qualify, I don't imagine it would have to be famous for being portable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The list is not indiscriminate. Main problem seems to be that it is a spam target, and deletion is not an appropriate response. The list may well require attention, it may well infringe some rule, but the existance of this list is a positive benefit to wikipedia. The keep arguments in the first AfD still apply. --SmokeyJoe 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- The list is indiscriminate. There is no effort to limit the list to software that is noted for being portable. The goal seems to be (a) create a venue for anyone and everyone to spam Wikipedia with their non-notable software and/or (b) list every piece of portable software available. We have an article on portable software, notable examples should be listed there. We also have Category:Portable software. This article serves no purpose. What does it do that the portable software and the category do aside from attract crap. AlistairMcMillan 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, this is then a content issue, and you assert it ought to be deleted because it will require work to fix? So help me fix it. I have already done scores of "cleaning" edits on the list, and it's much better shape. Help, rather than complain and try to get it erased, if you are unhappy with the present state of the content. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Further, if your grave concern is that this will be a "spam magnet", how is this article any more so than any other? I have begun checking each section and item already in the article, to see if the article in question asserts portability. You are welcome to start at the bottom, while I work from the top. The list is easily manageable, and removing two spam links in the past four days was trivial. • Lawrence Cohen 18:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Additionally, the list is valuable in that allows encyclopediac arrangement of the portable software by the very nature of the software, and it's role and purpose, which cannot be done with a category. • Lawrence Cohen 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- As mentioned before, this is then a content issue, and you assert it ought to be deleted because it will require work to fix? So help me fix it. I have already done scores of "cleaning" edits on the list, and it's much better shape. Help, rather than complain and try to get it erased, if you are unhappy with the present state of the content. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The list is indiscriminate. There is no effort to limit the list to software that is noted for being portable. The goal seems to be (a) create a venue for anyone and everyone to spam Wikipedia with their non-notable software and/or (b) list every piece of portable software available. We have an article on portable software, notable examples should be listed there. We also have Category:Portable software. This article serves no purpose. What does it do that the portable software and the category do aside from attract crap. AlistairMcMillan 18:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of all information. It is supposed to be a collection of notable information. We have clear policies that say Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory, indiscriminate collection of information or repository of links. This isn't a content issue. This is a "bad idea for an article" issue. We have the "portable software" article and the category, we don't need this article. AlistairMcMillan 18:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- To repeat our esteemed colleague's quote from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic?" I think I could count on one hand the number of pieces of software that are famous for being associated with or significantly contributing to the list topic. AlistairMcMillan 18:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- DELETED. Wikipedia is not a directory. WP:NOT#DIR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.215.60.180 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Since this article has now been dramatically cleaned up since it was proposed for deletion, I would say that it's considerably better than it was - all of the junk that was previously dumped into it appears to have been removed, leaving it with only relevant links to Wiki articles.
- The Wikipedia isn't a list of lists, but this article does add to the Wikipedia in the same way as a category storing the same information would; see also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Nuwewsco 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cool that is why we have the category, which is not up for AFD. AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I think these shortcuts are misleading -- WP:NOT#INFO does not say that Wikipedia may not contain information. Inclusion criteria are simple: if the software has an article and the software is portable, it passes. The previous AfD concluded that the list was useful and appropriate, and while that was a while ago, nothing has changed since. — xDanielx T/C 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- No one said the linked policy said "Wikipedia may not contain information", it says "Wikipedia may not contain indiscriminate information". AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I realize that. My point is that WP:NOT#INFO (excluding the numbered examples, which have some specificity) is not, and never has been, an independent reason to delete an article. It is, and always has been, nothing more than a response to the now-rare argument that "This information is true, therefore it should be included in Wikipedia." That argument has not been made here, so sighting WP:NOT#INFO really isn't appropriate for this AfD. WP:NOT#INFO by itself applies no more to this article than it does to art, science, or philosophy. — xDanielx T/C 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- No one said the linked policy said "Wikipedia may not contain information", it says "Wikipedia may not contain indiscriminate information". AlistairMcMillan 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Would people commenting here actually look at the article before voicing their opinions. Look at the edit history, in the seven days since this article was nominated, every edit aside from my own, Lawrence Cohen and one other editor was by someone spamming the article. Having an article about the software can't be criteria for inclusion because half the linked articles are stubs which are obvious WP:ADVERTs, which should themselves be AFDed. The list article doesn't tell you whether the software is portable because the original developers intended, whether it is portable because third-party have manipulated it to kinda sorta work as portable software (e.g. Mail, iChat) or whether it is "portable" in the sense that you can download the code and recompile it for another platform (e.g. wget). Even with the time that Lawrence has spent on it recently "verifying", there are no sources to prove that any of these pieces of software really are portable. The article is a fucking mess. It isn't a suitable subject for an article on Wikipedia. Stop voting in favour of keeping it because you think it is "useful", please read WP:USEFUL. AlistairMcMillan 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- How many times do you get to share your views on the matter? :-) We know where you stand, please AGF and back off before something is said which is regretted over a simple matter where consensus appears to be not what you wish, unfortunately. I have requested semi-protection as your main concern appears to be IP-vandalism. As for the bulk of the edits being me, that is right: I've been cleaning up the article, and will continue to do so. It does not need to be finished now, as it will be never finished. We have no deadlines here. • Lawrence Cohen 23:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This is nonsense. The nominator has very faulty logic here. You might as well delete List of portable computer games and List of LiveDistros, as well. I've seen a lot of people interpret WP:NOT in radical ways and this is one such case. 129.120.22.141 17:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia isn't a list a link directory, and this is all I see from this article wL<speak·check> 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- What link directory would that be? All the external/non-notable ones are already excised. • Lawrence Cohen 02:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete maybe belongs as several different categories, too vague as a list Mbisanz 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep due to cleanup.(Changed !vote from above) --Bfigura (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per author's request --DarkFalls talk 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Video seo
- OK* But clearly you caught me trying to add valuable info you dont have on your site and there are tons and tons of crappy work much worse than mine. maybe they are friends of yours ;-) Oh well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.191.223 (talk) 01:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
A combination of a how-to and a list of external links, written in an advertorial/promotional style. See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not intended as a home for how-tos, not a link directory, not a vehicle for promotion. Karada 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- OK* - So, I have certainly seen many many many worse pages. I was planning on adding a lot more research type information and sources but now I am going to delete. Ok, so I cant figure out how to delete... Go ahead and delete if I cant figure it out before hand. Sorry for the trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhythmdoctor (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Really?* - Ok, Ill delete it myself. Thought it would be a good topic but I am not much of a writer. Is it the links? I am happy to remove those but thought they were good sources. Not advertisements...
- Delete - As per the above, I couldn't have put it better! --WebHamster 00:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - As per above. Operating 00:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, violates WP:HOWTO, and contains way too much spam spam spam. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - clear example of CSD G11 (advertising). --Angelo 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a topic worthy of a better written article eventually. The collection of links is interesting and probably valuable. Since the article already exists, what's the problem with simply letting it be? --AStanhope 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, lack any notion of being encyclopedic; lists of websites are not appropriate. John Vandenberg 10:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tomb Raider Level Editor
Nominated for deletion in accordance with multiples sections of the deletion policy, including unencyclopedic content, unnotable content, unverifiable content, nonreliable sources attached to the article, WP:VANITY in use, such as to advertise levels unknown outside of the fanbase, and I do suspect that there are some copyright issues attached to this article. I can't see anyway to clean up this article over a complete overhaul. In any case, the article is highly bloated and needs to be compressed. WaltCip 00:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete Nom says it all here: content is unverifiable by any reliable sources; possible WP:VSCA at work here as well. Also seems to violate WP:IINFO, WP:HOWTO... even with a rewrite I still doubt it'd pass WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's WP:IINFO. Operating 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT. Also, note to the nom, please avoid using '
Vanity' in AfD's. See WP:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD Bfigura (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC) - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You posted a cleanup tag just a week ago. The cleanup template said 'Please discuss this issue on the talk page', but you failed to post anything there. WP:CU has a short entry, but it also states you should cross post it on the article discussion page because the Cleanup page is not visited by anybody, and the template also refers to the talk page for discussion about the cleanup. You gave the article very short time for cleanup, and without anything on the talk page about the cleanup it was expected nothing would happen. And as long as it is nominated for deletion nobody will cleanup it, since your work will proberly be lost then. Also deletion is not really an option, you simply can't deny the fact that this level editor exists as it is an official release. So it should merged in that case with Tomb_Raider_series. However the article is way to big for being merged, I think that was the reason it was made a seperate article again. So to be merged it needs a cleanup as well, but you should at least give people the chance to give the article a cleanup rather then tagging it without an explanation and then nominating it for deletion shortly after. 82.171.147.57 10:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- First, please log in before participating in an AFD. Second, it would seem that a cleanup would involve changing the course of the entire article. After scrolling through the article indefinitely, I have noticed that the entire content of the article, save for a couple of paragraphs, is encyclopedic. All that can possibly be merged, if you will, is a passing mention of it in the Tomb Raider article. Beyond that, attempting to clean up the article would result it in a revert from several forward editors, thus an edit war. I'd rather be direct and to the point rather than try to bother with a cleanup notice that would no doubt go unnoticed.--WaltCip 12:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have no doubt that my actions regarding cleanup were, at best, insufficient, since I was under the impression that my issues were already posted on the talk page. However, I had noticed a user had deleted an issue on the talk page that we were discussing regarding previous content of the article: "Highly Anticipated Levels". That user happened to be the one I was disputing the issue with at the time, and I am almost 100% certain that he or she will come galloping to this AFD within the next 24 hours. In the case where fanboyism rules an article, it is futile to attempt cleanup.--WaltCip 12:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Keb25 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete All that's needed is a brief mention on the approriate game pages. bob rulz 05:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian HolyLand Foundation
From CSD, no opinion. Prodego talk 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete article gives no sources independent of the subject; Google News and Google Books come up blank; mere 272 Google hits. Eleland 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- per Eleland and subject does not appear to have distinguished itself sufficiently for independent sources or awards, citations, etc. Accounting4Taste 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable foundation. Keb25 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Broadway. — TKD::Talk 07:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B'way
Article about a nn musician, and we don't have sources stating that he is a notable musician. Jonathan (formerly Jonjonbt) 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable "musician", doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC --WebHamster 00:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Ask.com didn't have any hits... another hint this "musician" is non-notable. Jonathan (formerly Jonjonbt) 00:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N. Tbo 157talk 12:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Vanity, non-notable musician. Keb25 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- If deleted, this should redirect to Broadway. --NE2 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Live Bonnaroo: 16th of June, 2006
This so called album is not much more than another of the many live downloads that Umphrey's offers available at http://www.umlive.net/. This is not considered one of their official live albums as far as I know. All major sources never mention this in any Umphrey's live album discussions. Furthermore, this article is an orphan. Chupon 22:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 04:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability - no secondary sources or other objective evidence of notability. Doesn't even contain references or external links. --SmokeyJoe 09:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability has not been established. -- JamesTeterenko 06:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userify to User:CCorward/Oxford International Forum. The article should only be moved back into the main space after it has been reliably sourced and can demonstrate notability. — Scientizzle 22:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Oxford International Forum
Non-notable defunct student society. Not even a single hit on Google (apart from the Wikipedia article and a derived search hit) [65]. Edcolins 17:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Note that I modified the wording of my nomination in the meantime.--Edcolins 18:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)"
- Delete, may well have played a role in organizing these events, but did not make the papers. Nothing found in Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hang on or suspend. I am familiar with the subject, yes it did play a role and it was in the headlines, especially the two local papers Cherwell (newspaper) and Oxford Student, but they were not online at that time. I have some of the cuttings, and will place the references there when I get round to them, not kept here. If you cannot hang on, I suggest you suspend the article until that time, if technically possible. On at least some occasions it made national news too but again not online. --CCorward —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- This user has only seven edits, all made on September 11, 2007. It may be a sockpuppet of Myth1727. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727. --Edcolins 19:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Author wants more time, see below
Delete. Subject fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. I removed the two false references. Unlikely to be able to meet Wikipedia:Notability. --SmokeyJoe 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC) - Hang on. SmokeyJoe, how can you assert that the references were false ?? As I understand them, they stated generically that refs are included in The Oxford Student and Cherwell (newspaper) for those years, which are not online (and I believe this is true, and as I have copies of relevant issues, I could then find exact dates, as indicated above). Did you go and check every single issue of those newspapers from ten years ago, to make such an assertion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CCorward (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The reference needs to be more specific to be of any use. When I followed the link and searched for the subject, I didn’t find it. The reference provided me with no evidence of the existence of the subject! Please provide a reference that points directly to independent verification of the existence of the subject, and some coverage of the subject. Publication, Issue, Page no.s, title and author. --SmokeyJoe 00:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Userfy No reliable sources to establish notability. The lack of any meaningful Google search results [66] for an organization that was only active in the 1990s suggests a significant lack of notability. -- JamesTeterenko 06:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Update. I'd be fine with userfying it for now to give the author a chance to build on it. -- JamesTeterenko 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hang on. Why can't I have time to find the refs and put them there, and you can suspend in the meantime ? And there was no link anyway in those refs, since they referred to hard copy publications. Also, notable individuals were involved at the time, and red links might then happen CCorward 16:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy for CCorward. Assuming good faith, he has a pile of old student newspapers that he needs to sort through to find references supporting the subject. The subject is historical, and old print references are the only ones that may exist. --SmokeyJoe 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that CCorward declared in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Myth1727 that he was not the same person ("I think I know the sockpupeteer, which explains my interest in some subjects as I mentioned above, but I am not the same person.") as Jonathan288, Unitsactor, and Whomseems, who edited the article at stake. In view of Wikipedia:Userfication#What can be userfied ("provided that ... (2) they are the only editor who has edited the content of the page."), I am not quite sure to where the article should/could be userfied... --Edcolins 17:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Given that the subject existed between 14 and 9 years ago, there would be no surprise in discovering that the article’s contributors know each other. If they are sockpuppets, I don’t see the harm being done here. The number of contributors should have no bearing on the fate of the article, whether the decision is made now or postponed. The critical thing for this article is the demonstration of notability through coverage in secondary sources. Whether the student newspapers alluded to are sufficiently reputable, I am undecided. The article can be userfied by moving it to User:CCorward/Oxford International Forum. --SmokeyJoe 04:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Userfy for CCorward. Assuming good faith, he has a pile of old student newspapers that he needs to sort through to find references supporting the subject. The subject is historical, and old print references are the only ones that may exist. --SmokeyJoe 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jaypaul Ahluwalia
NN person. I don't think his job constitutes notability. Contested PROD. Computerjoe's talk 18:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Computerjoe, non-notable. No citations, no awards, nothing to indicate he has distinguished himself from his peers. Accounting4Taste 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- From article by User:Cleo345: This article meets all the requirements of a Biography. I have compared numerous article already on wiki, and I have used some as a template to make this one. In addtion, this person is a prominent figure for the largest insurance company in the world. His is part of the Management team for a company that has almost 200,000 employees around the world, and brings in 122 billion on a annual basis. If you read the artcle closly, you will see that it meets the Wiki policies.. (sent via me, Computerjoe's talk 19:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)).
- In addtion, this person is a Sikh and part of the Ahluwalia family. This makes him stand out among the Indian and Sikh communities around the world. Being part of this minority and being notible in a large Global Comapany should be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleo345 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. He's an IT director. The fact that he's a minority doesn't make that any more or less notable. He's simply not notable. Smashville 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:BIO. I can't find any relevant sources online other than Wikipedia and its mirrors, nor are any provided in the article. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unsourced, failing key policy Wikipedia:Verifiability, let alone failing Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (people). --SmokeyJoe 09:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 01:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of former Brisbane Bears players
Since this club is defunct, all players are "former" players to begin with. And besides, it's already taken up by Category:Brisbane Bears players, so the lists's purpose is at best unclear... Circeus 20:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. While the list is incomplete, there are several red links meaning articles that have to be created. As all Bears players were players in a fully professional league, they warrant articles and this list is an appropriate way of managing the development of those articles as opposed to a category. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A list of notable players from a defunct notable club. Seems to meet WP:N to me. Needs to be tidied up though. Assize 07:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and Rename to List of Brisbane Lions/Brisbane Bears players. Unlike the genuinely defunct Fitzroy Football Club, a continuity of history between the the Brisbane Bears and Brisbane Lions is generally accepted by the Australian Football League in publications such as the AFL Record and in the statistics section of the official AFL website - see here. -- Mattinbgn\ talk 12:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, rename, merge to List of Brisbane Lions/Brisbane Bears players (Brisbane Lions being the new Brisbane Bears), per Mattinbgn. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 04:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for the reasons listed above. I would also be open to the merge/rename. --Roisterer 04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of naturalized citizens of the United States
Unnecessary, unmaintainable duplicate of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. Circeus 21:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As long as the entries in the page are listed in Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom – Zedla 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep How the hell did this show up down at the bottom of the list, when it was one of the articles nominated late in the day? The category doesn't impart the information about where the persons were from originally (in other words, all a category will tell you is that Isaac Asimov was a naturalized citizen; the article will tell you he was from Russia), so this one actually is neceesary. Unmaintainable? I doubt it. I think on'es native land remains the same throughout their lifetime.... Mandsford 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- If the list looks even remotely as "complete" as it should be, I would keep it in an instant, but as is, it serves no purpose that the category (and various other immigrant categories) cannot. Circeus 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - with regards to the placement of this nomination on the list, unless Wikipedia has changed the AFD format (and they might have), newer nominations are always supposed to go at the bottom. 23skidoo 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for this lis to be accurate as named, it would have to be prohibitively long, and would have to have hundreds of names added every day. The category is useful. The "List" article is not.74.171.5.194 03:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as an adjunct to the category. The cat is difficult to navigate, and the list is annotated with the country of origin. Its no more difficult to maintain than the cat. There is no policy of deleting a list when a category exists, so long as it is sorted differently, and is annotated. The categories are not annotated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - better handled by a category, otherwise as a list it could potentially have millions of entries. Utterly unmaintainable, and also WP:NOR violating unless a source is provided for every single name given. My advice: don't go there, at least not in this venue. 23skidoo 14:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Better as a category, there are possibly thousands of people with articles who could be listed here, so this is indiscriminate information. Crazysuit 02:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The list does provide more info at a glance than the category does, but it conceals as much as it reveals. Its purpose is unclear. Any list that jumbles Albert Einstein together with Pierce Brosnan has a decided lack of focus. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 02:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Categorization makes more sense for a group as large as this. Zaxem 02:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.