Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 25
- WMF draft annual plan available for review
- Voting for U4C candidates
Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take Back NYU!
- Take Back NYU! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an organization or student movement that was previously PRODed and seems to still need to meet the requirements for inclusion based on neutrality and basic notability guidelines. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I would lean towards keeping this, as the group's activities have attracted considerable attention in various media sources. I would add that it needs some work on neutrality. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This group's page only exists because of an isolated incident that was hardly even covered in local NYC newspapers. Thus there is not significant coverage by secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. NYU Local and the Washington Square News are NYU student-run media outlets, which do not qualify as secondary.—Noetic Sage 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This involves one major protest, so it may involve notoriety for a single event, for which it may be deleted. Disclosure: I'm not taking a stance because of a conflict of interest - the BF works for NYU. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 'famous' for a single event; no lasting notability (as of yet). If they become involved in a prolonged campaign that receives media attention, they may become notable, but I don't think they are because of this one protest. Robofish (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is an element of WP:SOAPBOX to this article, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. -- Whpq (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kilgore Books & Comics
- Kilgore Books & Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a second-hand bookstore which has only one source, and that source does not even mention the subject. 31 unique Google hits including Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of significant treatment in reliable sources that would allow this to satisfy the requirements of WP:ORG. The final bulleted item at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Companies is also relevant. Deor (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable as well as reeking of advertisement LetsdrinkTea 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. No evidence of notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultra Cheesy Flubbed Up Nuclear Cheesballs
- The Ultra Cheesy Flubbed Up Nuclear Cheesballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band with little claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC. No professional reviews or charting found at allmusic, no charting found at Billboard, no professional reviews found at metacritic. No independent, reliable sources showing notability in first half dozen pages of ghits; nothing found at gnews. WP:COI issues not helping. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, No evidence that this is notable at all. LetsdrinkTea 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Ancemy (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried searching for sources as well, including in a library database of news articles, and also on the site of the newspaper that would seem most likely to cover this band – I could find no sources. Delete unless sources appear before the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and my previous (declined) prod. tomasz. 10:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Stanbaugh
- Richard Stanbaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible Vanity article (author may be connected to subject and company), no independent reliable sources that could establish notability. See also the closely related COI article on his company, up for AfD here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No relevant Google News hits that pass the non-press release test (see [1]). Drmies (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find press releases and many directory type entries but no articles written about him. -- Whpq (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
State Class Battleship BB
- State Class Battleship BB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod, an article that references some online web fiction. Seems to fail notability guidelines, as currently being discussed here, as well as therefore lacking reliable sources. A similar article by the author, State Class Battleship, has also been prodded. Benea (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related page after the prod was disputed, for much the same reason:
- State Class Battleship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Benea (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As original PRODer. §FreeRangeFrog 22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable original fiction. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced, non-notable personal fiction. Also delete State Class Battleship Yamato which is another duplicate article. Edward321 (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Considering the several duplicate versions of the article that have been created, I recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as advertising 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment don't forget the article State Class Battleship Yamato 76.66.193.90 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unpublished fiction. Also State class battleship. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I first saw these articles appear, I just assumed they were something in the US Navy.... The work they seem to be related to is not only online, it's published. Unfortunately, it's published through lulu which means self-published. That casts quite a lot of doubt on its notability. I wish the author luck in getting proper publication if the book's up to it. Peridon (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Anuj filter
- The Anuj filter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonnotable neologism. Also, contested prod was: Looks like something made up one day by Anuj Panday in 2009. I agree. Evb-wiki (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a NEO. flaminglawyer 23:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: No context (A1) and/or patent nonsense (G1); nothing on it can be found through a Google search. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a NEO Marek.69 talk 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G1. Salih (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G1. PhGustaf (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Forsberg
- Mary Forsberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Marrying someone notable, working as a model, and having had a bit part in a barely notable film does not equate to notability. I can find various music press references to her, but entirely as a secondary figure (i.e., the wife of a Stone Temple Pilots bandmember). Haven't found anything that establishes individual notability. Forsberg is no Yoko Ono or Courtney Love. Article is entirely unsourced, and also includes material (an allegation of bipolar disorder) that should probably be removed per WP:BLP if this is kept. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of reliable sources to indicate notability LetsdrinkTea 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of independent notability and lack of sources. Adam Zel (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. No independent notability. Only Google News sources are articles about Weiland. THF (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to suggest notability independent of her husband 7triton7 (talk) 06:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dolores Rogers
- Dolores Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. I reiterate my reason for prodding: I cannot find any reliable secondary sources (as shown [2] and [3]) that can establish any notability of this living person. No logical place for a merge or redirection. (Note that this is different from the artist of the same name.)
The lone source added after the prod removal is from a fan-made wiki and hence is not reliable per the reliable source guideline or the verifiability policy. MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. LetsdrinkTea 23:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Dolores Rogers more than passes the notability threshold of WP:ENTERTAINER which requires that she has:
- a) had significant roles in multiple notable (other) productions: of which the Mario video game series certainly qualifies as a "notable production" and her voice roles in these games are certainly significant; if that is not enough, then;
- b) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following: for which the Mario gamers certainly have a cult following; if that is not enough, then:
- c) made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment: which is again true for Dolores Rogers who has clearly made prolific and unique contributions to the video game voice over field of entertainment.
- Clearly, for the reasons outlines above, Dolores Rogers is notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, and therefore she is a Strong Keep. I consider IMDB.com to be a reliable secondary source for an entertainer's credits. Esasus (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks the appropriate coverage from reliable sources, as nominator demonstrated, and doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. This is all the mention of her Wiki really requires. Mbinebri talk ← 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Bowser_Jr#Bowser_Jr. (as her primary voice acting role). Verifiablity is the main issue here. Also, of the points mentioned by Esasus:
- a) indicates that she should certainly be mentioned in the articles for the works she has appeared in. However, this is not a "significant role".
- b) WP:ENTERTAINER asks that the person has a large fan base, not the work itself.
- c) her list of acting roles does not suggest anything unique or innovative; 10 roles between 2001 and 2006 is not "prolific".
- So as far as I can tell, the article fails the notability guideline on all three counts. Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons well-outlined above. Adam Zel (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Marasmusine. decltype 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Miki Zheng
- Miki Zheng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Member of a seemingly non-notable 1990s Korean dance group, Micky Jung (or Miki Zheng as he is called here) is only otherwise notable for his 2007 marriage to Harisu. Notability is not inherited; fails WP:MUSIC. PC78 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, could not find any evidence of WP:N on Google LetsdrinkTea 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until he's notable on his own with some sources, he shouldn't get his own page. Maybe merge with Harisu? Ancemy (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted by PMDrive1061. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnathan Liey
- Johnathan Liey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete apparent hoax for which speedy was declined. Google has little about "Johnathan Liey" and what little there is doesn't seem to be this guy. Also, I'm left with an abiding suspicion of an article about someone who is not a singer who purportedly died with a syringe in hand that has popular posthumous "tracks". Perhaps not blatant enough of a hoax for some, but convinces me. Anyone else? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. To me, hoax=vandalism and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to clog legit AfD discussions with this kind of bovine excrement. User's other edits are pure garbage and he's about to be shown the door. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have in fact blocked this guy. All of his edits were just useless. If anyone's up for a speedy under WP:SNOW, I'm good. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. It's just nonsense. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and I second the call for Snow. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per nomination.Smallman12q (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to do it, believe me. Would someone be kind enough to close the discussion after I delete this thing? I've never done it. Thanks, all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slaveboy Beatdown
- Slaveboy Beatdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable film with non-notable star (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gia Primo). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The download link at the bottom makes it look like spam/advertisement LetsdrinkTea 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam and advertisement. Ancemy (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete - snowball closure. Marasmusine (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Dolman
- Matt Dolman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Avoidance (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete Appears to be written almost entirely by the person himself; autobiography. Non-notable. Fails Google test. One ref which can be checked is dead. Award seems pretty minor anyway. Not notable for winning one award for game which 'pedia doesn't even have an article on. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The primary editor of this article hastily created the Avoidance (video game) article when I mentioned it had no article. It is poorly written and also includes one dead reference. It should also be deleted, failing the Google test, but I haven't gotten around to it. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article per WP:OR and WP:SPS LetsdrinkTea 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - comes nowhere near meeting WP:BLP or WP:Notability. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I added the AfD for the video game as well. They both fail the notability guidelines. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, see nothing on NZ Herald, Stuff, Google, fails WP:N. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability. This wasn't a completely wasted two minutes though, the article itself is fairly amusing. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Not a notable person even if people could find him on Google. Seems to be written by the person himself to gain publicity.Gilagod101 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I find it amusing the he provides a newspaper ref for his date of birth. However he was born on a Sunday ( allegedly ) so there was almost certainly no paper published that day ( even if he was born early enough to meet the deadline ). - SimonLyall (talk) 06:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this smells of a hoax to me. I can't find anything on the award mentioned except in these two articles; and The original editor and now an IP have made attack-type edits (see the infobox). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Austenasia
- Austenasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Another micronation, very recently created and listed in the List of micronations. Search returns a grand total of 118 hits. I'm not sure what subset of the notability guidelines this would fall under, but seeing that the list is protected I figure these are created every other day, so pulling to AfD for consensus. §FreeRangeFrog 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I guess this falls under WP:WEB, but it doesn't meet the criteria there. One mention in a local newspaper isn't significant real-life media coverage. flaminglawyer 23:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things you made up. Some guy decided to write an article stating that his house is a country. That doesn't make it so. --L. Pistachio (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it did get a mention in a local newspaper. It wasn't declared so on WP. flaminglawyer 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But he did make it up... flaminglawyer 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Molossia was also made up just like Austenasia, but that has an article written about it. Austenasia has been written about in a newspaper and is mentioned on lots of other micronation's webpages.jshn 17:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) — Trausten2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- But he did make it up... flaminglawyer 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it did get a mention in a local newspaper. It wasn't declared so on WP. flaminglawyer 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteWay too obscure. --Sloane (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sign of notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands now, it fails WP:V, not enough 3rd party mention, it could even be a hoax. Mixed history of keeping such articles, Principality of Sealand is here, with extensive 3rd party coverage, police shoot-outs and all. But Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danmark (island) was (rightfully) deleted. Perhaps the solution would be to create a List of contested micronations with amusement value Power.corrupts (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It fails WP:GNG and arguably comes under WP:NOTNEWS. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Single mention in a local news. Fails notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete Is mentioned in lots of other micronations websites, is quite an active micronation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per most above and as per the rule that freeweb/web sites cant be used as ref's/sources. rdunnPLIB 08:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources are largely self-published, SYN, or Wikipedia entries. THF (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete What about the Republic of Saugeais? That has only two references, at least one of which is self published, but that's not nominated for deletion. Austenasia is a far more prominent micronation, with more reliable references and a greater number of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trausten2 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drew money
- Drew money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was tagged for {{notability}} tags were removed and three references added, but claims to meet WP:MUSIC still very weak. One link is broken, and the other two are what I would call trivial coverage (one list of tracks he has helped produced, the other listing him as one of several people who produced music for a video game). I'm not too familiar with the business of music production, so I'm open to arguments of why he would count as notable within the music production business, but, at the moment, I'm afraid to say this looks like an article intended to promote the individual's career. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not established. Possible spam. --Sloane (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more references and fixed broken link. this is a notable producer.--Damunnyman (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He fails claim to meet WP:MUSIC because he is not a musician, he is a music engineer (aka Entertainment industry), and a notable one at that. The fact that he is credited in numerous notable productions is what is required to establish notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. See the current helpful discussion at Sonia Darrin
- But he's a producer and engineer--Damunnyman (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that WP:ENTERTAINER is aimed at other front-of-stage people, such as actors, comedians etc. I don't believe it was ever the intention to apply this rule to back-room contributors. I admit the lack of any guidelines for people who work behind the scenes doesn't help this discussion, but that's what AfDs are for, to make decisions in these matters. Having looked through the new references (only a quick one, I admit), all I can find are credits of "engineer" to several notable albums and an article about him in a university alumni magazine, and, at the moment, I don't think it's enough - notability has never been about association with big names. It's a promising career though, maybe he'll meet notability standards in a few years' time. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But he does meet the criteria for musician under WP:MUSIC including his work on Grammy nominated albums as well as platinum album sales.--Damunnyman (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- However, being a member of a notable band explicitly does not confer notability on that individual, so I don't see how working as a sound engineer for a song can count as notability. Okay, WP:MUSIC does say that an individual who has been a member of two or more notable bands is generally enough to confer notability, but that's a whole different league to having been an engineer for two or more notable artists. Being the producer of several award-winning albums would be a different matter, but I've not seen anything in the article to back up credentials as a producer. Come back with that and Drew Money will be in a better position to have an article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But he does meet the criteria for musician under WP:MUSIC including his work on Grammy nominated albums as well as platinum album sales.--Damunnyman (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has 4 producer credits on major albums as well as programming which is basically the same thing. Did you even read the whole thing?--216.189.162.176 (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is now splatted full of references, but none of them establish notability. All that it really establishes is that he has a job in the recording industry. -- Whpq (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a widespread misconception that the success and size of a company can replace being the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is not the case. If you want to get on Wikipedia, get your rolodex out and start calling journalists. Tell them about your clients, your awards, your employees. Once they've talked about you, so can we. yandman 14:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANXeBusiness
- ANXeBusiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Corporate profile about a company that fails WP:CORP. No indication of notability beyond the fact that it exists. A bio was also created for the CEO, which also fails to establish notability in any way. §FreeRangeFrog 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that ANXeBusiness satisfies the noteworthy criteria. ANXeBusiness operates the Automotive Network Exchange (ANX) which is one of the largest extranets in the world. The ANX connects auto suppliers, large and small, with the major auto manufacturers and enables secure collaboration within the automotive supply chain. Thanks, --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point. ANXeBusiness recently was awarded "Best of the Best Michigan Business" by Corp! Magazine (http://www.pr-inside.com/anxebusiness-corp-awarded-best-of-r1051969.htm). I didn't include that link in the article as I didn't want the article to appear too self-promotional. I can add this if it helps improve notability. --65.160.66.179 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not a very big or competitive award--the article in Corp Magazine lists a TON of companies that won that award in various categories; ANXeBusiness won in the Technology Firms category, along with 12 other companies. This seems to be clutching at straws. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Award footnote. Yes, 12 other companies were recognized in the technology category. However, there are thousands of technology companies in Michigan. Another interesting source is Green.TMCnet.com. They are paying attention to ANXeBusiness because ANX has become a notable provider of services that enable business telecommuting (cloud based managed remote access).--Gdmoore20247 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Great Lakes IT Reportis a notable secondary source that covers technology companies in Michigan. ANXeBusiness is a frequently mentioned in their articles, blogs and webcasts. --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources that establish notability are added before this AfD closes. Anyone and their dog can make claims here at AfD that so-and-so should be considered notable because of x and y, but unless and until sources are cited, the article is bad and should be removed. I have nominated the CEO's own puff piece for deletion as well, here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since I find no evidence that this company has ever been the subject of independent, in-depth coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a technology company providing managed network connectivity and tools to global businesses which enable secure collaboration within or between enterprises. In other words, yet another non-consumer online business using Wikipedia as a free web host. And if that's how you describe yourself, your license to use the English language is hereby revoked. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ANXeBusiness is not just an online company. They are a long standing provider of a private extranet that connects suppliers with auto manufacturers. The ANX network is a critical component of the North American automotive supply chain. ANXeBusiness has expanded into other SaaS areas, but their core business is noteworthy. --Gdmoore20247 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - the number of press releases churned out for this company is simply astounding. In weeding through the search results, I did find [4], [5], [6], [7] and some toehrs behind pay walls that appeared not to be just press releases. That's not a lot but enough for me to squeak by for notability.-- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to contribute to this discussion. First – I would like to disclose that while I have not contributed to the writing of this article, I am the CEO of ANXeBusiness. While I agree that I am not noteworthy (at least – I haven’t done much that is noteworthy since the birth of the web :-), I believe that ANXeBusiness is and would like to submit some facts for your consideration. I am a heavy user of Wikipedia – but I am not an editor. In fact this is my first direct contribution, so I apologize in advance for the mistakes that I will make. Please consider the following:
- The ANX Network is the original of several regional networks that were established in the late 1990s to facilitate electronic collaboration amongst automotive companies. It is unique in the fact that, unlike its counterparts ENX in Europe, JNX in Japan and KNX in Korea, it was privatized while their operation remains with the founding associations (EAI, JAMA and KAMA respectively).
- The ANX Network was established by the Automotive Industry Action Group *The AIAG which sold [8] the technology to SAIC. SAIC founded ANXeBusiness in April of 2000 (DUNS number: 135870785), Google Finance with the purpose of building the network community and ensuring its long-term viability by commercializing its operation.
- ANXeBusiness owns the US Patent 7072964 and is well known globally for its operation of the ANX Network. Secondary references include : ENX website reference, JAMA website reference, KAMA website reference, andAustralian AANX website reference.
- Several universities have performed research projects on private network exchanges and have used ANXeBusiness as a part f their study. Here are links to two of those studies: MIT, Syracuse and Lund University, Sweden.
- In October, 2006, ANXeBusiness was acquired by [[Wikipedia:One Equity Partners|One Equity Partners] in order to support ANXeBusiness’ continued growth into vertical markets other than automotive. Since that time, ANXeBusiness has completed a number of private company acquisitions. Because these mergers were private company transactions, the only source of information about the transactions is a party to the transaction. Some of these include: MEMA, Pacific Crest.
- ANXeBusiness has over 5,000 customers and is independently referenced on many of its business partner websites (supporting notability). at&t, Siemens, Dassault, Grid4
- While ANX is a private company, it is still the subject of some independent research and analyst publications. Some examples include: Alacra, AllBusiness, [9], [10], and [11].
I believe that ANXeBusiness is notable. It has existed for 9 years, is known internationally and supports about 100 employees in seven states. Rather than striking the article, I would appreciate guidance for a company that is a newbie to Wikipedia to establish information in a format that provides meaningful information to users like me. One of my favorite things about Wikipedia is that I always get an answer when I look something up. I also appreciate the veracity of that information. ANX would not expect less for any information about the company. Thanks, Rich --Rstanbaugh (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The key issue for this dicsussion is notability. Note that by notability, we are discussing how the article meets the Wikipedia guideline for notability as distinct from any dictionary definition. The nomination for deletion specifies that WP:CORP, the notability guidelines for corporations is not met. You should review them and put forth any information that would indicate the guidelines are met. Furthermore, there is a also the general notability guidelines which apply , well, generally. One of the key ways to demonstrate notability is to present significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Whpq; no matter how much business the company does and with whom, our standard is WP:N, and its measurement is via reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW , May I suggest the nominator read the various policies and guidelines concerning deletion before nominating another article? yandman 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of cities in Texas
- List of cities in Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely pointless and redundant with categories Nerfari (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time of this nomination User:Nerfari had 30 edits.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that you need to have more knowledge of policy before you start trying to enforce it. That comes with experience editing and participating. The burden is on you as the nominator to give a valid reason to delete this article. Also, no matter what reason you give, somebody is going to disagree with you, and you should not take it personally. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - "Completely pointless" is not a valid argument for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "serves no purpose"? Nerfari (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how about you come up with an actual reason for keeping it? What is it for? Nerfari (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serves no purpose" is still a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please provide a sufficient argument as to why you feel the article should be deleted, and then I'll bother to expound upon my rationale. Also see Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state—if you want this one deleted, you'd have to get rid of the whole lot, otherwise there would be a significant gap in coverage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look I have no personal feeling of dislike towards this list, I just don't see why you need to have it. It requires maintainance and it doesn't do anything. Nerfari (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, "doesn't do anything" is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see Wikipedia's deletion policy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look I have no personal feeling of dislike towards this list, I just don't see why you need to have it. It requires maintainance and it doesn't do anything. Nerfari (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serves no purpose" is still a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please provide a sufficient argument as to why you feel the article should be deleted, and then I'll bother to expound upon my rationale. Also see Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state—if you want this one deleted, you'd have to get rid of the whole lot, otherwise there would be a significant gap in coverage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Invalid nomination reason.Smallman12q (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just one person could assume a little faith here and tell me what it's here for. If I'm wrong I'll withdraw but if you are going to try and bulldoze me instead of persuading me... Nerfari (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Being redundnant to a category is not a reason for deletion, and in my view, nominator hasn't provided any convincing reason that it should be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As far as I know, we have something like this for every state. They do serve a purpose, and I agree with all of the above that there is no objective reason to delete this. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete under criteria A1. Publisher? Author? Not enough context to identify subject. I suspect fanfiction, rather than hoax.
Halo: the spartans renegade
- Halo: the spartans renegade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Google search did not yield this title, likely a WP:HOAX, WP:CRYSTAL at best. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this kind of rubbish gives AfD a bad name. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a hoax, no evidence of existence. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax bordering on total nonsense LetsdrinkTea 23:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, if it was real it would of made big news in the games industry.Gilagod101 (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Remember that AfD is not a vote. Based on the balance of this discussion, with the relative strength of the presented arguments, the appeal to our policy of WP:NOT#NEWS appears stronger that to our inclusion guidelines Fritzpoll (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube cat abuse incident
- YouTube cat abuse incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't see any claim to notability in this article. 14-year old does something v.stupid is not notable. Illegal act posted to youtube, ditto. Perp arrested as a result of youtube video, ditto. Incident used as space-filler to sell advertising in dead-tree publications, based on same AP news release, ditto. Combination of same, ditto. See also WP:NOT#NEWS which states "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". Exactly what is the historical notability of this 14-year old's error? Tagishsimon (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I'm tempted to say keep merely because it's the first time 4chan users have done something good... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment They've been good at least once before - Pflugerville, Texas#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I think it's actually more notable for the actions of Anonymous (group) than the videos or the abusers themselves. Nobody's going to remember the name of the perps or the fact that it was on YouTube, but as another form of hacktivism (akin to the Wang Jue kitten crushing incident and the fallout) it's notable.--Piepie (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment They've been good at least once before - Pflugerville, Texas#Pflugerville High School terrorist threat --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not the news. Some of this should be moved into the main 4chan article. Themfromspace (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This incident made international news (was reported in papers from Ireland, the UK, France, Russia, and Australia at least) and seems to have gotten a great deal of publicity. It meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR because it is well-sourced and describes what is already said elsewhere in reliable references. *** Crotalus *** 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My initial thought was delete, but this article has multiple international RS and seems to satisfy our criteria. Could do with expansion, but there are plenty of sources. Verbal chat 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Themfromspace. The real subject of this article is the kid, and I see this as a WP:BLP1E issue. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Keep. As much as it pains me to say it, this meets WP:N and WP:V. Should this be notable? Not by a long shot. However, there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to get it through WP:N. Firestorm Talk 20:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this article IS kept, I strongly recommend we make certain the alleged perpetrator's identity is kept out of the article permanently on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On that point I disagree with you, but it is an issue to be addressed at the article's talk page or BLP/N, not here. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The mass propagation of the video and the fashion in which the video was analyzed toward the identification of an alleged perpetrator make this a remarkable case, more notable than a usual news event otherwise of this sort, toward which see the broad and non-trivial coverage in international publications the incident has received; even under the most restrictive interpretation of NOTNEWS, then, and surely under the construction of NOTNEWS for which a consensus exists, this merits encyclopedic treatment. Joe 20:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Wow, it survived a whole five hours before going up for deletion. Sarcasm aside, its received enough coverage in reliable sources that notability is not an issue. Its written based on the incident, not the person (who's name probably hasn't even been released), so there's no BLP1E issue involved either. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Their name HAS been released. I've already had to redact it from the article and a WP:AN post. Exxolon (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And you and others make the mistake of confusing multiple RS with notability. They are not the same thing. Notability asks for "historical notability" for news stories. This is far from the first youtube posting which has led to a perp being identified. It has no historical notability whatsoever, just none whatsoever. Multiple RS simply means that multiple newspapers thought is was a colourful enough story to run: god help us if tabloid preferences become our guide. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, the first and formost indicator of notability is multiple independent sources. Much like Paris Hilton, this is incredibly stupid and if it weren't for the press coverage, nobody would care. But also like Hilton, there is press coverage. From all over, not just local. That makes it notable enough to cover here. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates WP:BLP and is stuff that's more suitable for Wikinews.--Sloane (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cat break 1
- Keep Does not violate BLP since the person's name isn't even mentioned (unless of course you are talking about the cat); this incident has caused international outrage and has received much media coverage LetsdrinkTea 21:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Russia Today, The Sun, The Irish Times, The Daily Telegraph. This is no Boxxy, these are solid non blog sources. Meets WP:N by a longshot. --Zaiger talkplx 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- also here is a blog report from Harvard law just for fun http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/zeroday/2009/02/16/internet-mob-justice-tracks-down-cat-abuser/--Zaiger talkplx 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Multiple reliable sources is only one aspect of the establishment of notability; this doesn't meet the rest of them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into another article like Anonymous_(group)#Internet_vigilantism_reports. However, it's distinct from the Chris Forcand, Hal Turner and Chanology 'raids' since it wasn't initially planned or done for the lulz. It was a genuine knee-jerk reaction by 4chan upon discovery of Kenny Glenn's YouTube videos. It's already generated a fair amount of old media coverage and it will probably get more notable as it goes to trial. This blog from Harvard talks about this as an example of "Internet mob justice". Also I'm surprised this doesn't have an article http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Chinese_bloggers_pressure_leads_to_kitten_killer_giveup --Piepie (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a news story, not an historic case. It may be that the story reflects modern society or says something about what people do with you-tube or how you-tube is used to solve crimes. But wait until someone writes a book about those subjects and decides to incorporate this story to illustrate their thesis. From an ethical perspective, it is wrong to give further publicity to juvenile delinquents who break the law in order to gain publicitity for themselves. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first half of your remark is fine, but we don't delete pages just because we don't like the people they are about. Plenty of horrible people are notable enough for an article, and plenty of wonderful people aren't. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean don't write about someone because we don't like them, just don't create articles about nasty people just because they made EyeWitness news in Buffalo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 06:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cat break 2
- Delete transient 4chan meme, WP:BLP minefield. Might just belong at Wikinews if anyone still cares. Guy (Help!) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per arguments of Crotalus, and the comment above I do not find to be helpful.--HootlePooch (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Abuse happens all the time. Here today, gone tomorrow. Also, as mentioned above, this is a BLP minefield. KnightLago (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - nobody's gonna care about this a decade, if not sooner, from now. There is also a story about a man from toledo who kidnapped a woman and forced her to wear a diaper as he read the bible to her. Is this deserving of an article too? (I can already imagine the "wikibureaucratic" name now: "Toledo diaper kidnapping incident".) Anyhow, what about Stuart Slann [12] (Stuart Slann facebook hoax)? that made headlines too, does it deserve an article as well? If so, I vote for an article for every 4chan meme ever. --Philip Laurence (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS—Kww(talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, especially ludicrously ephemeral news such as this. Forget next decade: no-one will care about this next month. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been argued that WP:NOTNEWS provides a rationale to delete this article. That policy states that "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article"; this is clearly not such a topic. It stresses that articles on individuals notable for one event are to be avoided; that is precisely what this article does, in lieu of an article on the perpetrator(s). The "think of the children" argument that the article is "a WP:BLP minefield" is plainly not a reason to delete it, for if all such articles were worthy of deletion, we would deprive our readers of articles on Rihanna, Child suicide bombers in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Family of Sarah Palin and so on. Let's be very clear on this point: Notability is not subjective. The Irish Times and The Telegraph are prominent broadsheet newspapers, and without doubt reliable sources independent of this topic. The coverage of this event in the two articles is not trivial, and unambiguously fulfills the significance criterion. In short, this topic clearly meets the encyclopaedia's threshold for inclusion, the general notability guideline. This discussion has thus far provided exceptionally poor rationales as to why this point ought to be ignored. Skomorokh 09:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have Harvard Law and several other reliable sources covering the incident. Of course BLP is an issue. We should make every effort to not ruin the kid's life because of one mistake, but it's doable to navigate the so-called BLP minefield. If it turns out this is later forgotten, we can always delete it then. If it turns out we can't navigate the minefield effectlive, ditto. - Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be a consensus to keep such articles with much 3rd party mention, even if the issue may well be forgotten in a decade or so (or very much sooner). There was recently a snowfall in the UK which hit Wiki's front page. If Wiki is a repository of the world's knowledge, it could also be an archive of such events, even if there might be some issues with ethnocentrism. I would say keep as per WP:NOTPAPER Power.corrupts (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cat break 3
- Keep per notability asserted and shown. Then discuss on talk page the possibility of merging this content to abuse sections or either 4chan or Youtube as more viable search terms. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obviously per Not news Eusebeus (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the notnews/meme/etc arguments. This became an issue only because a bunch of teenagers at 4chan decided to take revenge over it (as a cat person, I was rooting for them, but that's besides the point), and it's the only reason this article exists. Thousands of animals are abused every day, and many of those occurrences are also brought to the attention of the authorities and the perpetrators punished in some way. Yet we don't have articles about those. As a standalone event outside of the intertubes angle, it's completely non-notable at best. And it didn't even turn into a notable meme that I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 18:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guy and others. We're not a news site or dumping ground for 4chan crap. Notability is not temporary, and this is just another flash in the pan. Move on. GlassCobra 20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Guy. This is so transient (who remembers the Dog crap girl?), clearly not encyclopedic. If people are still talking about it in a year, maybe there's a point. THF (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, we've got an article on Dog poop girl. As for who remembers her... you clearly do, and now I know about her, too. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that was a bad example because Daniel Solove wrote a book where that incident played a big part, which is why it was on my mind, but that's what made that notable (though I see the book isn't cited, but the blog post is). Still, I believe in WP:NOT#NEWS, even if AfD generally doesn't. I can see discussion of the incident in Internet vigilantism, so it's not like I'm for purging the content; I just don't believe in having all the parallel articles with duplicate content that we have. THF (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - News story. We are an encyclopedia. — R2 00:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into Internet vigilantism. - Per WP:BLP, we've got to "get it right", and the article will need to be watched closely for violations. (Yes, both articles are now on my watchlist.) Still, it meets the criteria, and the arguments for deleting seem to me to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Whether or not we like it, this is an event that is shaping and defining how we relate to the Internet in the 21st century, partly because of what happened, and partly because it's getting so much attention. A comparable event in a year won't get the same media attention, and would likely not meet our notability standards. For now, this is what it looks like when new cultural ground is broken. Freaky, huh? I don't remember anything in my childhood comparable to "U.S. cat abuser punished by the internet".
Whenever the histories of the Internet are written, and this event is put into a historical context, then we'll deal with it in those terms, but until then, I think it passes muster. What I don't understand it what would make a kid want to do that to a cat. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per Guy, Realist2. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Several extremely good secondary sources establish notability. We know that wikipedians are generally biased against 4chan and related trolling sites. Other "newsy" articles with such quality sources would never get deleted. A little less hipocrisy and a little more NPOV please. AfD hero (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above is a completely unacceptable accusation for which I've taken the writer to task elsewhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You personally may or may not be biased, but it is a fact that wikipedians on the whole tend to have a systematic bias against 4chan and related sites. I'm just bringing up the elephant in the room... AfD hero (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep . Frankly the abuse itself is NOT notable. YouTube probably has hundreds of animal abuse videos, I really don't see the point in this. however, 4chan trolls' admittedly respectable response really began to push this event into being notable. yes, it's sensational, silly, and needlessly immature--but it's a popular event, stealing coverage from notable sources. reluctant keep... Mikey9090 (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it made international news. Glad they tracked down and arrested the scoundrel. Dream Focus 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP and protect from deletion again. Ikip (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is that done? I'm not aware of any process that permanently, or even temporarily, protects an article from deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete not every incident of animal abuse reported in the media deserves an article, maybe transwiki to wikinews since wikipedia is not news.Troyster87 (talk) 08:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sick YG
Reliable resources have been added for this artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by E. Pasteur (talk • contribs) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sick YG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested (tag deleted w/o comment) speedy. Most of the references here are not reliable in any way, and most of what I find searching is unreliable as well. I think this artist fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. §FreeRangeFrog 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. The article asserts notability, hence speedy is not appropriate, but I think he still probably fails WP:MUSIC. Firestorm Talk 20:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After researching this on Google, I am convinced that this fails WP:N LetsdrinkTea 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as yet another MySpace artist. I added a reflist--and the references are all not references, so to speak. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sick YG meets the criteria in the first paragraph number 10 for he has contributed to independent compilations of notable labels in compliance of being in business five years or more (Million Dollar Dream recognized for the release of artists such as Andre Nickatina). Also, he has contributed to the release of a worldwide video game soundtrack via MADWORLD produced by SEGA. Although I may agree that the references are a bit confusing, everything is notable and can be retrieved through a search engine such as Google. Here's an international playlist retrieved which is proof of being in rotation of a major radio program: JOINT ONE RADIO
PRODUCED BY STILLY STILL, JOEY SLICK, & SHUZZ – J*STILLTON STARRING: STILLY STILL & JOEY SLICK MUSIC BY SHUZZ & THE JOINT ONE RECORD POOL EPISODE #2008 SPECIAL GUESTS: JESSICA (SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP) ASHRA (LEGENDARY INC.) 76.1 INTERFM TOKYO PROGRAM LOG from:2008/10/04 23:00 to:2008/10/05 00:00 DATE TIME ARTIST SONG TITLE LABEL DISC No. 2008/10/04 23:00 BABY BAM POPPIN' OFF BABY BAM RECORDS J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:03 BUFF 1 BEAT THE SPEAKERS UP A SIDE WORLDWIDE - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:06 TOP CHOICE CLIQUE PEACE OF MIND BRICK RECORDS J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:09 DJ KO NOBODY LIKE ME F. DIAMOND D, KAZE, & EDO. G SHAMAN WORK - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:12 LARGE PRO THE HARDEST F. STYLES P & AZ GOLD DUST MEDIA - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:18 PHARCYDE RUNNIN' (PHILLIPIANS MIX) DELICIOUS VINYL - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:24 PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS THE MIKE CHRIS STORY GOLD DUST MEDIA - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:28 DJ MUGGS & PLANET ASIA THAT'S WHAT IT IS GOLD DUST MEDIA - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:32 Sick YG DEATH OF A LEGEND, BIRHT OF AN ICON (J-STILLTON BEAT) SHIMA SOUNDS - JOINT ONE J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:36 CARLOS NINO & LIL SCI PRESENTS WHAT'S THE SCIENCE (ELEVATION) HIGHER SHAMAN WORK - SPECTRE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:39 EMC WE ALRIGHT M3 HIP HOP J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:47 ASHRA NEW DAYS F. E.G.G. MAN LEGENDARY INC. LEGY 0002 2008/10/04 23:52 COLBY O'DONIS NATURAL HIGH F. T-PAIN KONLIVE - GEFFEN J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:54 COUNT BASS D YOU'RE BETTER THAN ALL THE REST DOMINATION RECORDINGS J1 PROMO 2008/10/04 23:55 ONE PHAM GET AWAY FA SHO RECORDS J1 PROMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.19 (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of programmers
- List of programmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As with list of lawyers, this should be deleted per WP:SALAT which reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories." Benefix (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:LC items 3, 6, 7, and 11. Stifle (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This list is eight years old and predates the category system. In those eight years, the only that that has happened was the addition of people and the addition of Sections per alphabet letter. This would work better as a category (if it hasn't been done already) and this page deleted. Also per WP:SALAT. Tavix (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obsolete list of people that doesn't provide anything a category wouldn't LetsdrinkTea 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The brief summary of the notable work performed by the programmer in most of the entries makes this a more useful navigational aid than a category. Also, categories cannot contain redlinks, so the information we have on (for example) Paul Abrahams would be lost if this list were deleted. While it is a broad topic, I don't think it's too broad to include. JulesH (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list is still a manageable size and by including redlinks it provides something categories can't'. It also gives brief definitions of what they did, which cats can't do either. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, adds value over a category. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists are not superseded by categories - see WP:CLS. Also this list seems quite good already. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per established policy about lists and categories:
Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia.
— WP:CLS
The deletion of "Lists of lawyers" was a bad precedent, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. DHowell (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above cogent "keep" arguments. Lentower (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nom is misreading WP:SALAT: this is broken up by alphabetical order, which classifies as category as per the use in WP:SALAT. The list should perhaps be reworked to have specific breakdowns, but most notable programmers are generally not classifiable in this fashion, with multiple claims to notability. --Cerejota (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:OR, WP:Synthesis (I'd have loved to be able to mention WP:not a crystal ball...) yandman 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Septennial cycle
- Septennial cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I've been looking and can't find sufficient evidence of notability for me to think that this article isn't mainly OR - I should be able to easily find good references to a septenennial cycle in classical Western astrology if it were notable. dougweller (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the German astrologer cited has a webpage that asserts that the classic 7 planets link each have their own year (Saturn in 2007, Jupiter in 2008, Mars in 2009, etc.), I don't see anything else that suggest that this is anything other than an idea from Angela Preis-Hartmann. Odd as it is to talk about something that is not accepted theory in astrology, this doesn't seem to be something that other astrologers talk about. Mandsford (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at this: http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarI.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarII.html http://www.austriancoins.com/MedalsCalendarIII.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systemizer (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of links pertaining to the septennial cycle:
http://www.astrouranus.ch/marsja09.shtml
http://www.kathshop.de/benno/katalog/pdf/019783.pdf
http://www.jutta-briegel.de/pageff728f0008.html
http://www.bluewin.ch/de/index.php/374,13673/JUPITER_regiert_das_JAHR_2008/
http://www.hillac.de/zei_b282.htm
http://www.moderne-astrologie-heute.de/inc/aid13.pdf
http://viversum.freenet.de/freenet/magazin/artikel_2009_3_1_1.html --Systemizer (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentAh, but you say 'pertaining'. That's your opinion and is original research. dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The one in English doesn't use the phrase 'septennial cycle' and I checked two of the German ones,
septennial in German is septennial or asan adjective something like siebenjahrig, I could find neither. But why all the German links? If this is a common concept in astrology, good English language ones would be easy to find. dougweller (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The matter is that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. Most of European metaphysics (philosophy, astrology) is of German origin. The difference between the Germans and the English is akin to the difference between the ancient Greeks and Romans. We owe our culture to the Greeks. Systemizer (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on Metaphysics has plenty of English language authors, perhaps you don't know about them. Metaphysics is clearly not 'alien to the English-speaking civilization' (and I had to study it at Yale in the early 60s). dougweller (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is well established that any language is OK for references, and if the concept is notable in Germany, it is notable for our purposes. The encyclopedia articles are written in English, but the scope is world-wide. DGG (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is whether any of the references establish the notability of a concept called the 'Septennial cycle'. I couldn't find it,
and the word 'septennial' is apparently the same in both languages(and I looked for variants, but we actually need 'Septennial cycle'. Otherwise what we have is OR. dougweller (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Comment The article creator is known for original research, and recreating deleted pages, see their talk page. [13] Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is whether any of the references establish the notability of a concept called the 'Septennial cycle'. I couldn't find it,
- Delete More original research from article creator. Edward321 (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There doesn't seem to be an Afd tag on the actual article. Edward321 (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThanks, weird, must have been a Twinkle problem. Or it happened when there was a bug in the software, which there was a few days ago. Fixed now. dougweller (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = I find dougweller's research into the German-language articles persuasive. (I find Systemizer's comments about Germany being the wellspring of Western mysticism to be mind-bogglingly weird...he needs to read up on the mysticism movements in England in the Victorian era before he continues in this vein.) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Strong Delete = All of Systemizers arguments have been demolished either by others or by himself. There is no notability to this concept, it is original research and synthesis, and the core idea apparently doesn't exist outside of a couple of fringe astrology believers. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Metaphysics is not mysticism. Consult a dictionary. Systemizer (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrology is mysticism, consult your nearest astronomer. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrology is not necessarily mysticism. Mysticism implies lack of INTERNAL logical coherence. --Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I...I don't even know where to start with this one, it's so strange and unrelated to reality in any way. I think I'm done talking to you about this topic. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I meant by saying that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. A high level of latent inhibition makes people incapable of understanding metaphysics. "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837) Systemizer (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um....no. For all you know, my native language is German, or Gaelic, or Swahili. Also, for all you know, I'm not from Emerson's country. So please back off. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting silly. If English is a language incapable of expressing metaphysics then clearly the article can not be written in English to a satisfactory quality and must be deleted anyway. The argument is not only foolish, it is self defeating for the purposes it is being invoked. That said, it did encourage me to go back and check that there was a German Wikipedia article on this subject and, guess what, there isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. I think Systemizer is systematically demolishing his own arguments. Upgrading my opinion to strong delete. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting silly. If English is a language incapable of expressing metaphysics then clearly the article can not be written in English to a satisfactory quality and must be deleted anyway. The argument is not only foolish, it is self defeating for the purposes it is being invoked. That said, it did encourage me to go back and check that there was a German Wikipedia article on this subject and, guess what, there isn't. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um....no. For all you know, my native language is German, or Gaelic, or Swahili. Also, for all you know, I'm not from Emerson's country. So please back off. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I meant by saying that metaphysics is alien to the English-speaking civilisation. A high level of latent inhibition makes people incapable of understanding metaphysics. "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." (Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837) Systemizer (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I...I don't even know where to start with this one, it's so strange and unrelated to reality in any way. I think I'm done talking to you about this topic. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrology is not necessarily mysticism. Mysticism implies lack of INTERNAL logical coherence. --Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Astrology is mysticism, consult your nearest astronomer. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Article creator needs to more thoroughly understand our policies (especially WP:NOR) before wasting more time creating articles like this. --John (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not contain original research. Be more specific in your claims. Just show me the suspected element of OR, and I will show you the source.--Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained it above, I can't do more and am going to have to get away from my PC - real life demands call! dougweller (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Read the top of this page and especially the photograph of the astrological calendar (Aus einem astrologischen Kalender von 1935) Der astrologische Jahresregent. On the photo of the calendar, it is said that "Die Planeten-periode ist 7-jahrig." The German language does not have the word "septennial." "7-jahrig" is translated as "septennial": http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-german/septennial I provided new external links on the article page. The "7-jahrig" cycle is extensively used by European astrologers. Systemizer (talk) 06:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained it above, I can't do more and am going to have to get away from my PC - real life demands call! dougweller (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not contain original research. Be more specific in your claims. Just show me the suspected element of OR, and I will show you the source.--Systemizer (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per dougweller. Original research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStrong delete. The author has participated in this discussion and failed to produce any evidence that this subject is a coherent subject at all, is notable or even exists under this article's name. Given the vast volumes written in various languages on the subject of astrology, you would not expect any problem finding references for any notable astrological concept. In fact, the normal problem is the reverse, i.e. that it is too easy to find one or two references for any old nonsense which an individual astrologer made up. I have tried Googling and it seems that the most notable use of the term is a Jewish one unconnected to astrology. There are many genuine seven year cycles and all this article does is cobble a few of them together with original research. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Google has retrieved:
- 2370 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mars (2009): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mars-jahr%22&btnG=Search and 1360 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Jupiter (2008): http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22jupiter-jahr%22&btnG=Search
- 502 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of the Moon: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22mond-jahr%22+reihe&btnG=Search
- 676 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Mercury: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22merkur-jahr%22&btnG=Search
- 235 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Venus: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22venus-jahr%22&btnG=Search
- 643 webpages dedicated to the septennial year of Saturn: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22saturn-jahr%22&btnG=Search
Here is another page describing the cycle: http://www.sarastro.at/html/jahresregent.html Systemizer (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It doesn't matter if the various 7 year cycles you talk about in the article are notable. Trying to bolt them together into a wider concept is still original research (see wp:syn) unless you can show a reference that already links them all into the concept you are writing about. Quality not quantity is what we need. One unimpeachably good source would do it. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hebrew calendar was similar to the Babylonian calendar—in both calendars, the year began in March and the Jews adopted the Babylonian month names:
In the Bible, months are usually numbered rather than named; but occasionally Phoenician names are used in the books written before the Exile and the modern names, which come from the Babylonian calendar, in those written after it. The first month is normally that beginning at the spring equinox, called Abib in Exodus and Nisan in Nehemiah; this was also Babylonian usage. (The Oxford Companion to the Year)
I have shown that the year 2000 is a year of Saturn both in the Jewish and the Chaldean septennial cycles. By the way, don't you know that the Jews were in captivity in Chaldea? Systemizer (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jewish Septennial cycle is related to a pattern of Torah readings. It has nothing to do with astrology. The calendar similarity is irrelevant. It is a different concept to the one you are trying to synthesise. Not everything that takes seven years is related to everything else that takes seven years. You have given us a hell of a lot of links to look at and in return I would like you to look at just one short one which highlights the intrinsic absurdity of linking the unconnected far better than I can. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Torah is a Semitic book. No wonder that the Chaldean cycle is identic to the septennial cycle of Torah. Christ's native tongue was Aramaean—the language of Chaldea. I have added new text to the article explaining it. Systemizer (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: OK. Thanks for that. You have demonstrated that you are simply making it up as you go along without any recourse to published sources. I am upgrading my vote to "strong delete" accordingly. I am not going to keep repeating myself but I will just point this out one more time: The Jewish seven year cycle is not related to astrology at all. It is related to two 3.5 year periods over which the Torah is read, as one of your own external links makes very clear [14]. Furthermore, while some Jews do follow astrology, it has no basis in any mainstream form of Judaism. Attempting to link a Jewish concept to an unrelated astrological concept may even be considered offensive. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The primary source of the Septennial Torah cycle:
Vayikra (Leviticus) 25:1 And HaShem spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto HaShem. 3 Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
4 But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for HaShem: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.[15]
The 3.5 year periods are of secondary importance and were invented much later.
Yesterday, I came across a book drawing a direct parallel between the Jewish Sabbatical year and the year of Saturn of the Babylonian seven-year cycle (in Babylon, it was considered to be an "evil year.")
I have deleted the text about Shmita. Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment = After the interchange above, Systemizer changed the sentence "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the ancient Semitic astrological tradition" to "The septennial cycle of the Ptolemaic astrology ascends to the Chaldean astrological tradition". It strikes me that this change is an effective proof that this article is either original research or made up entirely, since the Chaldeans were Babylonians, and not a Semitic people. In other words, the sentence has changed entirely to mean something in direct contradiction to its previous meaning. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea#The_People Flopsy, what are you doing here? --Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See that citation needed tag? It means something. If the words mean the same thing, why did you change them immediately after Daniel's argument above? Doing that just makes it clear you're making this up as you go along. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After the fall of Assyria, Babylonia enjoyed 70 years of independence. The Chaldeans, a little-known Semitic people, became the ruling class of the New Babylonian, or Chaldean, Empire. The most famous of their kings was Nebuchadnezzar II, who rebuilt Babylon. They made great progress in science—particularly astronomy and mathematics—and strongly influenced the Greeks. [16] Systemizer (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are missing the point. You are defending your synthesis without acknowledging that Wikipedia simply is not an appropriate platform for it, even if it is defensible as a theory. If I had invented some wizzo new astrological concept I would either look to publish it in astrological circles, and have it accepted there, or just get a premium rate phone number and charge people money to hear it. I would not be looking to insert it into an encyclopaedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I have deleted what you objected to. 2) Google has retrieved thousands of webpages on the astrological septennial cycle (links above). How can you call it wizzo new? Frankly, I am amazed at the degree of the cultural isolation between the German- and English-speaking countries. Systemizer (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All you need to do is show us one really good reliable source that demonstrates that the complete synthesis you are writing about already exists and is notable. It can be in German if you like. My obvious ignorance, stupidity and blindness to metaphysical subtlety should not be an obstacle. If the theory is exists and is notable then you should be able to demonstrate this to somebody with no prior knowledge. At the moment, we do not have verifiability, which is an absolute requirement for an article to be kept. But let me ask this before I go, if this stuff is so mainstream in German speaking countries, why does the German Wikipedia have nothing on it? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the word Jahresregent here: http://www.zeno.org/Pierer-1857/K/pierer-1857-008-0719 Here is another printed book: Die göttliche Wissenschaft By Reinhold Reinerth An article from Brockhaus: http://www.brockhaus.de/wissen/jahresregent Astrological glossary (see JAHRESHERRSCHER) Systemizer (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaldea#The_People Flopsy, what are you doing here? --Systemizer (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while the article is a mess, and parts smell like WP:OR, it appears to be notable on the basis of the citations. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is pretty notable—Google has retrieved 41700 webpages on septennial year ruler (Jahresregent) http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=jahresregent&start=0&sa=N Systemizer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Bearian. I would be interested to know how closely you compared the subjects referenced (I actually think there are several unrelated ones) with the purported subject of the article, which is a nonsensical original synthesis of them. I do not believe that the references and external links support the thrust of the article as it is currently written. I would be interested to know which of elements of these subjects you think are notable and which are not. I am not completely adverse to the possibility that something can be rescued from this mess if it was written in a neutral manner, by an experienced editor, following the sources. That said, I remain to be convinced, and I think that deletion and starting from scratch would be the best approach if there is a future for this subject at all. I am not even convinced that the article is correctly named at the moment. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel, I do not know exactly what you mean by nonsensical synthesis—you are so inarticulate (virtually dumb) in your speech... I mentioned two interesting coincidences (with Shmita and the bone cell replacement timing), without any original analysis. Just food for the reader's thought. Systemizer (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Original research and Synthesis. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lost My Way
- Lost My Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article does not provide sufficient support for why the song is notable outside of it's existence and a subjective interpretation of the lyrics. -- TRTX T / C 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm really getting tired of people thinking that songs written by notable people are notable in and of themselves. Its really getting to be like WP:POKEMON all over again.
- Delete: non-notable non-charting song WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. What is JMS ? Why JMS ?
- 1. What is JMS ? Why JMS ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A subjective essay, whose topic is already adequately described at Java Message Service. ←Spidern→ 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete exam answer —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with 2. What are JMS Models ? too. ∗ \ / (⁂) 20:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both of these. Subjective essays do not belong in an encyclopaedia. Firestorm Talk 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as OR. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete As copyvio of http://www.nyu.edu/classes/jcf/g22.3033/handouts/g22_3033_h87.htm LetsdrinkTea 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the copyvio; maybe a couple of sentences. I'm deleting the speedy tag, and deleting the two offending sentences. But to be safe, I'm adding the
{{close paraphrase}}
tag and giving the link on the talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - I didn't see the copyvio either -- Dank55 barely beat me to declining the speedy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just chose a random sentence and googled it and got an exact match so I tagged it as Copyvio LetsdrinkTea 01:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the copyvio; maybe a couple of sentences. I'm deleting the speedy tag, and deleting the two offending sentences. But to be safe, I'm adding the
- Delete. Why are we even discussing this? This is not an encyclopaedia article and already covered per nom. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject already adequately covered elsewhere. -0 Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This reads like someone's homework. Wikipedia is not for posting essays. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 21:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Languid Delete. Meh. – 74 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed. Nobody, including the nominator, is arguing for deletion. So there's no deletion discussion to be had. WilyD 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plant (botanical)
- Plant (botanical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Should be a redirect to the primary article: plant (which is a well developed full article). This is a discussion of a narrow taxonomic debate that would best be incorporated (if cleaned up) into the taxonomy or plant articles. No compelling reason why there should be an article on plants, talking about botanical plants, and then plants (botanical) talking about taxonomy. Shadowjams (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the comments on the talk pages for Plant (botanical) and the plant talk page linked from there? To paraphrase it: the experts need a page that details the history and changes as to what is called a plant and into what the subcategories they are divided. The average user needs a page that tells him something about the green growing stuff outdoors and in the flower pot. Both needs can not be met on one page because the organization of information required is different and it would also blow the page out of proportion. The needs of the "ordinary Jo" are not really met by the current plant page because it tries to straddle the gap. Give the new page time to grow and prune it only if it fails to bear fruit. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Props on the plant puns (seriously), but I think the "what is called a plant" issue is a taxonomic one that certainly should be referenced in the plant article, but dealt with elsewhere. My nom is a merge by another name (can't pun quite as well). Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (carefully) per nom. No need for a fork - this content should be explained at plant. If ever there is a need to split off the taxonomy information, it should have a better name than plant (botanical). Not all information is sourced, either, and a bit misleading (e.g. the section on the "Two Kingdom System" says Linnaeus classified Archaea in with plants, which isn't exactly accurate since Archaea weren't known until much later, the study of microorganisms only being about 30 years old at the time Linnaeus worked). --Rkitko (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, per Rkitko. The main plant article needs to be improved, perhaps forking some of the detailed taxonomic information into an appropriate daughter article. Guettarda (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (carefully) per Rkitko. Hesperian 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (extremely carefully). As I've already said on Talk:Plant, we should be very careful about the wholesale adoption of a new (i.e. last decade) taxonomic scheme. History shows that brave new schemes are often supplanted, so with something new, it should be clearly identified as such and probably shouldn't supplant more accepted (if probably out-of-date) schemes such as that favoured under, say, Five Kingdoms. Do we have a house taxonomist who can comment? --PLUMBAGO 08:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Either merge or keep under a different name. The content needs work, but it should not simply be lost be turning it into a redirect. I see nothing wrong in principle in having a spin-off article on the concept of the plant kingdom, and the different systems proposed through the ages. If there is more than can comfortably fit within Plant, then it seems a good idea to have this fork - but plant (botanical) is not the right name. Try Plant classification? Probably not - that implies classification below the level of the kingdom. Or maybe (and I think this is probably the best solution) merge this content into Plant taxonomy, which already exists as a separate article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 11:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This is a merge discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Reliable sources are given SilkTork *YES! 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Writings in SF
- New Writings in SF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Remove. Fails WP:BK. There are no reliable sources. The series existed, but - apart from a few SF fan sites that mention it - I couldn't find anyone who had written about it. I recall the series - I read some of the issues, and may even have a copy in the loft somewhere - but it doesn't appear to be notable. SilkTork *YES! 18:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is the possibility of redirecting to John Carnell and making a section in that article about the series. Even though there is little information on which to base a section, some details could be given about dates and contributors. SilkTork *YES! 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Your assessment of the article as possessing no reliable sources is premature, since the existing article was simply a placeholder to host the discussion page on the merger proposal. As for your going ahead and merging in the articles under discussion, that too was premature, since the discussion was ongoing. In light of the fact that the issue is unresolved I am not going to second-guess your doing so at this point, though the reasonable thing to do would have been to maintain the status quo until a definite conclusion had been reached. Kindly attempt to restrain yourself from over-precipitate activity in the future, out of courtesy to other contributors, if nothing else.
As I have noted in the previous discussion, defending the notability of the series is comparatively simple, even if defending the individual volumes might be less so. Carnell was a vital figure in the development of British science fiction in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in fostering new talent. All of the journals and series he edited (including New Writings in SF) served that end. Brian W. Aldiss's article on Carnell in the 2004 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is a good place to go for documentation on this point. Carnell's aims for the series are spelled out pretty boldly (and ambitiously) in the first volume. The names of the series's contributors, many of whom already were or or afterwards became important in the science fiction field, serves as good corroboration. These can easily be verified in the Internet Speculative Fiction Database. As for your statement that you couldn't find anyone who had written about it, well, you couldn't have looked very hard. Try looking into some of the standard references -- the Clute encyclopedia, for one. Reference does not begin and end with the internet.
Naturally, I oppose the proposal to delete the article on New Writings in SF. The previous proposal in regard to the individual volumes was arguable. The present proposal is wholly without merit. BPK (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "No reliable sources"? Please take another look. The stub was created 2 days ago. In the last 36 hours, new authors, including me, have made many edits, expanding and cleaning up the article considerably. Though I have used some, there are additional references at GoogleBooks that haven't been incorporated into the article yet. There are also reviews which haven't been incorporated into the article yet: [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Rosiestep (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rosiestep. More sourcse that could be useful: [21] [22]. This series is part of the history of SF, and really should not be deleted. There will be plenty more sources in fanzines and other critical works that are not available online. JulesH (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Keep. This was began without regard for the purpose of the stub, to host discussion on the merits of moving/merging several articles into one article. As BPK (rightly) has no intention of fleshing out an article that is going to be deleted, I have no intention of writing a fully cited article only to have the move/merge discussion turn cold. This was a noble, if overzealous, attempt to clean-up, but you must understand - we're using that article. Padillah (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obvious keep per User:BPK2. There are hundreds of good sources for this - what was the nominator thinking...? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What the nominator was doing was the merges as requested, and as I was doing them I became aware that the external links given were not appropriate as they a) gave no information other than what was already in the article and b) were not from a reliable source (www.isfdb.org). I thought, as I was doing the merge, that I would add some cites. My GoogleBooks search ([23]) was flawed in that I didn't use inverted commas so the return was simply pages of the book rather than on the book. So my thinking, at the time, was that there were directory listings of the series which proved it existed, but I saw nothing to assert the notability. I read BPK2's comments with interest, and also the GoogleBooks links provided by Colonel Warden using inverted commas which show comments about the series, including this one which gives the notability by saying this was "the longest-running original anthology series". I also note the article now has reliable sources. As such I'll close this as a Wikipedia:Speedy keep under Reason 1. SilkTork *YES! 19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)
- Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:POVFORK from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I'm ambivalent about whether or not it's POV, but it looks like there's plenty of content, and content that's unique to the sub-topic and not appropriate in the stratospheric aerosols topic. If after removing POV statements it is as short as the part in the parent, then by all means delete. If the page does go away, a merge into Geoengineering might make more sense than a merge back into stratospheric aerosols, since the focus is on the geoengineering aspects, not necessarily the sulphur mechanism. Shadowjams (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although for me it's about having the info, not so much where it is. Stratospheric sulfur aerosols is currently seen as a leading geoengineering technique, if not the leading technique. Therefore, it definitely needs comprehensive treatment somewhere. Mr.C. kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea. I'd also be (just about) happy with a merge into Stratospheric sulfur aerosols buy ONLY if the comprehensive info was not affected. If it went into geoengineering I think it would be too long an article, and not sufficiently focussed. I accept that having loads of geoengineering stuff in Stratospheric sulfur aerosols would clutter it, so a keep seems the best idea.Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [William M. Connolley] kept deleting content from Stratospheric sulfur aerosols, so Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering) seemed a good idea. Case = rested. A textbook case of a POV fork. Thank you for admitting so. -Atmoz (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do with POV, any more than effects of global warming is POVfork from global warming. There's nothing POV about it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to goeengineering.--Sloane (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete yet more noise from AJL; we really don't need a stream of badly written, inaccurate unreferenced articles. Its going to die eventually, must its death be prolonged and painful? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a vote for a cleanup, not a deletion.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm a total outsider on this topic. Please, let's not make this personal. Shadowjams (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cleaned up a bit:
- improved the section layout
- added sources where [citation needed] tags were found
- re-edited arguable POV material
It still needs expanded citations and doi-sourced refs, which I'll crack on with now.Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the recent edits, this article has plenty of potential LetsdrinkTea 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stratospheric sulfur aerosols. When someone repeatedly removes information from an article. The correct course of action is to discuss it, seek wider input or try dispute resolution. Dropping the text in a separate article to avoid the confrontation is the textbook definition of POV fork. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The text was removed for IRRELEVANCE, not for POVfork. It's a different subject, much like chess and Gary KasparovAndrewjlockley (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The possible use of these aerosols in Arctic geoengineering needs to be mentioned, and a clear distinction made between such Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques for cooling and techniques to reduce GHGs in the atmosphere. This article has plenty of potential, I agree. John Nissen (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep — Article got lots of reliable references — Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is a natural summary/spinoff from the main article, dealing with a specific aspect of use for geoengineering. The articles are both sufficiently long and well-sourced, so I see no problem with the current organization. – 74 23:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Referenced article which needs tweaking, which has been coming already.SriMesh | talk 02:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Open tasks
Please amend/addAndrewjlockley (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace any non-notable links with sci. papers etc.
- Check references cited support claims in article
- Convert bare urls to cite-webs
- ???Create disambiguation page for sulphate aerosols, stratospheric sulphur aerosols and stratospheric sulphur aerosols (geoengineering)
- Keep the revised article, as it does seem to be NPOV, thus not a POVFORK anymore. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xclamation point 06:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary OS
- Elementary OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hasn't received any media coverage, distro still under construction. Non-notable. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is other software on Wikipedia that has not been released, and you can get it just not in a single installer. --Spazturtle (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied at Talk:Elementary OS. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, so a good article can't be made. Maybe after it's released and generates buzz it can be recreated. Ancemy (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep www.distrowatch.com have added it to the list of distros to be added --Spazturtle (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They add every distro that announces itself (read their FAQ), but all distributions aren't notable. What I fail to find are reviews of this distribution in notable magazines and websites, not surprising as the distro is under construction. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to list of ubuntu-based distros - Improve the article or it will get deleted. Give me a reason why this is notable in any way (I don't care about wikilaw, just explain why this is not "just another distro") and I might change my vote. SF007 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This distro uses a new custom kernal and nautilus navigation system, version 2.0 will have a custom GUI as well. Oh and distros like 'Super' Ubuntu are also "just another distro" --Spazturtle (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not said this was "just another distro", I just asked for a reason to keep. I don't like to delete articles, so I voted neutral. I would like to vote "weak keep", but the article is very small and the distro does not have much references. Anyway, I changed my vote to redirect, because I don't like deletions. Regarding Super Ubuntu, probably it is not much better than Ubuntu, I agree, but at least is a bit more useful than "pure Ubuntu". In case you did not noticed, I am not against the article (or the distro), au contraire... SF007 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable and I found no third party reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. --Chealer (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep/ closed by nominator. I didn't think that a state legislator qualified as first level sub-national office (for some reason I was only equating Governor to that.... silly me) and as the article originally stood I didn't see extra anything qualifying as notable. Great job on the rewrite and the added sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Krieger
- Tim Krieger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN state rep, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Google comes up with nothing except his contact info on the PA house of representatives website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion he seems to meet WP:POLITICIAN, specifically as a member of the Pennsylvania legislature he holds a first-level sub-national political office and so meets the first criteria - "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges". Most memebrs of the PA house of representatives have articles and although this article is only a stub that's no reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect he meets WP:POLITICIAN, but this substub is so devoid of information that it is more a directory entry than a biography. Does anyone know when or where he was born, which party he's in? Well our article doesn't help them either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Just did a major update so it now provides a lot more information (although, annoyingly, not where and when he was born as I ahven't found this yet). Dpmuk (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the rewrite. Still would like to know when & where he was born, but alas the information is probably a state secret. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just did a major update so it now provides a lot more information (although, annoyingly, not where and when he was born as I ahven't found this yet). Dpmuk (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as state level politician. Well done to Dpmuk for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hayden Johnson
- Hayden Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
concern = Gsearch not turning up notability for this Hayden Johnson. No references in article to back up weak claims of meeting WP:Notability. Autobiography. Prod removed by User:Haydenj without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Claims would be very weak assertions of notability even if substantiated. - Vianello (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable; per WP:BLP WP:BIO WP:SPS LetsdrinkTea 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN and also appears to be COI 7triton7 (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feng Xiao-Min
- Feng Xiao-Min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreadable mess of an article. A google search turns up nothing on Feng except for a print website selling one of his or her prints. If some of the events and exhibitions he took part in could be verified he or she would easily pass WP:N, but as of right now this fails WP:V. I'm going to work on cleaning this article up for readability issues, wondering if anyone who reads Chinese could find out if there are any sources on Feng. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like this is a repost with none of the original concerns being addressed. Speedy Delete Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Bruce Marshall. yandman 08:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Children of This Earth
- Children of This Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any notability. Google News has one result, a passing mention, and Google search isn't much better. The article's content borders on CSD A1, as well. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Marshall is a historically significant and prolific writer (more than 40 books). He is quite popular among Catholic readers. Wikipedia prides itself on being a repository of information, and my article, though very short, does give potential readers a sketch of what this particular book is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corsair1944 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably notable but needs expansion. If not possible then it should be merged into Bruce Marshall. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the article on him, especially since it contains only one line of text. For most authors, not all their work will be equally notable. Looking at his books in worldCat, I see that, after, after 60 years or more, The world, the flesh, and Father Smith, still has 940 library holdings; Vespers in Vienna" 694; 'White rabbit 689; This has 6. I have not looked for contemporary reviews, butt rhis does not seem like one of his major works. DGG (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crappy one line article on non notable book, can be merged to the author's page. LetsdrinkTea 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep This clearly needs to be written better. If the author is notable, it should be possible to find reviews of his works through Catholic magazines and such. So I'm willing to posit sources exist, just not online. Ancemy (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per DGG. To author: we try to be comprehensive in our coverage, but that doesn't mean giving every single book its own article. We can cover small pieces of info in a larger article on a related topic. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - book is notable enough for its own article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge If more info comes up, it can always be recreated. This as it stands isn't worth the space. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author's article without prejudice. Allow recreation if/when more sources are made available toward the book's individual notability. It was reviewed by New York Times[24] on May 11, 1930, but I do not have access to such an old review. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG and others above. Non-notable on its own. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pierwsze strony gazet
- Pierwsze strony gazet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Totally unsourced and no indication of notability for this single. There's a whole bunch of them if someone wants to deal with the rest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unable to find sources to support a claim to notability. [25], but then perhaps that's because I don't speak Polish. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pierwsze strony gazet means first page of the (news)papers, so those google news hits above have nothing to do with the song. With limited Polish it is hard to determine notability, but no apparent claims for chart success here. Parslad (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nom. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save the Netbooks
- Save the Netbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a blog, run by the creator of this article, that just started less than a week ago, to campaign for a particular position. Major COI problems, no real notability for the website (as compared to the topic in general, which probably belongs under netbook only), and the sources used for the article fail reliable sources (a bunch of blogs, pres release by the site) and do not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for people to campaign on their own behalf. Maybe if this site sticks around for a while and makes a real difference somewhere and gets mainstream news coverage for it separate from the topic as covered on netbook, then it can have its own article. Right now it's just someone abusing Wikipedia as a press release for his cause. DreamGuy (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it does seem like an obvious attempt to use WP as a propaganda tool and a clear case of COI. If that's sufficient grounds for deletion, then so be it. Letdorf (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Letdorf is one of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company and whose recent edits outed me personally, then 2 minutes later discredited both article and author by affixing the COI cleanup template. Their haste to contribute to this discussion is likely due to this unrelated dispute, but in any case their reasoning is not "sufficient grounds for deletion". Also, prior to the blocking of User:842U the only commentary permitted in the netbook article on the subject was unjustified claims of genericide. -- samj inout 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can't really get excited about this trademark controversy either way, but I don't like WP being used as a soapbox. I also like to see WP articles report the facts of the matter in as objective a way as possible, as, of course, they should. These are my only interests in this and other related articles. There was no "outing" involved, as you freely admitted your COI on the talk page. Letdorf (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong Keep or Merge (from author) As I said to the brits and socks on the talk page:
- The site clearly meets WP:WEB (see here, here and here). There's some more for good measure, here, here in japanese, here in spanish, again in turkish, one from the philippines, even some negative press. Even so, the register, ars technica, techdirt and jkontherun are all non-trivial and independent so any two of them should suffice for WP:WEB.
- The article itself is unbiased, the subject need not be. Nobody has identified areas where the article fails to have a NPOV, least of all influenced by COI.
- Remember, COI is no justification for deletion. -- samj inout 16:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, just realised that the article was brutally savaged by DreamGuy before listing it -
even I'd vote against it now. -- samj inout 18:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a lot of modification is made. I have meda no secret for my dislike of this article's subject matter. The author has gone as far as to claim I'm doing something wrong by requesting edits, accusing me of sock puppetism, rather than naivity and inexperiance with Wikipedia. Reasoning with him seems to boil down to this general template: "I'm right, you're wrong, there is no discussion to be had - thank you SamJ". However, samj will claim that I'm a sock puppet and that I'm also biased. I deny both charges. This needs to be decided by someone with a completely objective position. Memsom (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)I would like to retire from this discussion. My vote is now null and should not be counted Memsom (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum if we want to be more exact with the problems this article has to overcome:
- Slander_and_libel defamation "the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image."
- Addendum if we want to be more exact with the problems this article has to overcome:
- The author is a strong Partisan of the movement. He is responsible for the manifesto against the subject, with an aim to defame/cause damage to their legal right to defend a trademark they have held for around 10 years.
- All attempts to call for moderation have been quickly quashed by the author.
- Most edits from people external to this article have been removed quickly. The only way I have menaged to pus a less biased agenda is through expressing my concerns and getting the author to make changes. These have been painful to extract and have often been less that was requested.
- Memsom (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Memsom is the other of the two (british) editors who have been vigorously defending this (british) company, both here and outside, openly admitting to having a conflict of interest. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- samj inout 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retort Sam, I believe I have told you from the beginning that I disliked the attitude of your campaign - to quote myself from your first link:
- I could go and change the Wikipedia article, but I'd rather someone with no attachment to the other camp has a hand in it. I call b***s**t on you, because you are perverting the Wikipedia article and making a mockery of the Wikipedia neutral stance.
- I don't know the other people who have commented on this thread, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I ended up here due to the following chain of events:
- News story on OSNews
- Investigate web site. Follow links.
- Discover Wikipedia article through links. Look at SamJ's "articles edited". Notice Netbooks included
- Realise the link between SamJ and Sam Johnson, owner of the Save the Netbooks site.
- Have dialog through Twitter - SamJ abruptly blocks my account - apparently discourse is not allowed?
- Make an edit to the page - SamJ undoes it.
- Start dialogue on the talkback - whilst also attempting to raise notice of issues this page has.
- SamJ places a COI notice on my talkback. I return the COI, adding an extra item to the list with appropriate counter links.
- SamJ accuses me of being a Sock Puppet.
- More discourse, SamJ makes minor edits to this page... more discourse, more minor changes.
- Another appeal, SamJ seems to begin to listen, certainly reacts with less venom.
- Boom, all heck breaks loose here.
- I don't know the other people who have commented on this thread, I can't speak for anyone but myself. I ended up here due to the following chain of events:
- Along the way, I note more than one person has attempted to request moderation - each time SamJ has removed the tag almost immediately, IMHO making a mockery of Wikipedia.
- SamJ has run such a campaign perviously, which claims to have stripped Dell of the "Cloud" trademark. I haven't looked in to the details, but I see an alarming trend in the subject matter of the articles this user is creating and the practices he is advocating. Should we be encouraging hate mongering and cyber vigilanteism? If the word Psion was replaced with a racial group and the message one of a hate campaign against that group, would the article have lasted this long? A quantum leap in logic, I know, but I've pondered this fact over the last day.
- Being British is irrelevant. Psion is no longer a British company. It would be like me calling Vauxhall a British company, even though they're owned and run by GM/Opel. Memsom (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is exactly why your vote should not be counted: WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- samj inout 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you feel the need to turn this in to school boy "you're it", "no you're it with bags on", "no you're creamos and no returns"? I voted for deletion *or major revision*. You're not exactly going out of your way to to build bridges here. Memsom (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have to go out of my way to "build bridges" - it's just an article and the content will end up in the Netbook article where it will get more eyeballs anyway. What I don't appreciate is the repressing of a message just because people don't like its contents. There is no doubt whatsoever that the subject is notable and nobody has been able to identify specific issues with the article outside of blanket assertions. -- samj inout 23:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you give off a persona of being abrasive, people (other people, I'm past caring and in to the "defend my position from the accusations" point) will react badly. If I felt like you weren't attacking me and slinging mud in my direction, I would stop commenting. Memsom (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
random section break 1
- Delete - The COI issues here are too large to overlook. If history shows that this was a notable campaign, restore later.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment COI is not, never has been and (with any luck) never will be a valid reason for an AfD vote. The purpose of these debates is to establish whether there is enough verifiable evidence of notability to satisfy WP:WEB and as you can see from the many examples above there clearly is. -- samj inout 17:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete' - Clear COI interest, also as a current civil legal dispute any posting would need to be clearly NPOV - this isn't eg links that went the 1998 grant of trademark evidence were deleted. Also, the main author and defensive editor doesn't want to take points about the law, which in an article about a tm dispute might be helpful. Also, I didn't think being British prevented you commenting on an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.27.50 (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does when the subject is a british company, in much the same way as it would be were the subject an olympic athlete. It's not really all that surprising then that your edit comes from a british university. -- samj inout 17:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. A users opinions count the same no matter what country they are from. Their comments would count the same even whether they are from the UK, US, Japan, Sudan, or anywhere else. Samj, you might try backing off from spreading false info just to save this advertisement for your campaign. TJ Spyke 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This IP address, 131.111.27.50, is registered to University of Cambridge and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution." -- samj inout 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that (I checked the WHOIS). My comment was that their opinion would mean the same even if it was from a US or Australian editor (or any other country). Being from the UK doesn't change anything. If the user was from the company that owns the trademark, that would be different. TJ Spyke 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When a handful of editors, socks and IPs work together to delete an article about a british company it definitely matters (WP:COI, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc.). The only issue this IP editor identified was a specific ref about 1 trademark in 1 country that was replaced with "International trademarks were issued" so as to be less precise but more accurate. -- samj inout 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Accusing the opposing individuals of conspiracy is a big claim. Can you back that up? Can you prove that (a) we know each other (I don't know them, I can't speak for them knowing each other) (b)this is an organized attack (it is not, I have clearly explained how I got here which you have also documented when attacking me.) (c) being British is a crime in this instance? Psion ceased trading in the UK some time ago, as far as I'm aware. If not, the Canadian wing of the company now runs the shop and they are a Canadian registered company as far as I am aware. Memsom (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When a handful of editors, socks and IPs work together to delete an article about a british company it definitely matters (WP:COI, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, etc.). The only issue this IP editor identified was a specific ref about 1 trademark in 1 country that was replaced with "International trademarks were issued" so as to be less precise but more accurate. -- samj inout 23:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that (I checked the WHOIS). My comment was that their opinion would mean the same even if it was from a US or Australian editor (or any other country). Being from the UK doesn't change anything. If the user was from the company that owns the trademark, that would be different. TJ Spyke 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This IP address, 131.111.27.50, is registered to University of Cambridge and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution." -- samj inout 18:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't. A users opinions count the same no matter what country they are from. Their comments would count the same even whether they are from the UK, US, Japan, Sudan, or anywhere else. Samj, you might try backing off from spreading false info just to save this advertisement for your campaign. TJ Spyke 18:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear COI (and the articles creater/campaign organizer keeps removing the COI tag). The article also appears to be blatant advertisement to try and get people to support the campaing (which IS grounds for deletion), the majority of the page just states the goals of the campaign. A brief mention in the Netbook article is sufficiant. TJ Spyke 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again COI has no place in these debates (except perhaps to justify some problem with the content) and the COI tag is a cleanup tag, not a tool to permanently brand content you don't like. Also, on what basis do you claim that it is "blatant advertising", bearing in mind that the CSD G11 policy is "Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" and this content is clearly encyclopedic. You misread the intentions of the article but we perhaps didn't do enough to assert notability. In any case it's good to see someone outside of the UK contributing to the debate. -- samj inout 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no third-party reliable sources I can see. And overt promotional use of Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except here, here and here. Oh that's right, they were stripped from the article before it was listed. How convenient. Also bear in mind that the policy on blatant advertising (CSD G7) states that "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." -- samj inout 18:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, lt us examine that claim:
Criteria Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following: Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.).\
Which justifies the actions of DreamGuy in about 60-80% of the removals as bare minimum.
I do agree this is not grounds for deletion, but it is definitely not unjustified or vandalism. Memsom (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if those particular ones were there, I'd still say the same. I'll view it as notable when it gets into newspapers. BTW, you have a conflict of interest: per WP:COI, finding fault with the basis of every comment here doesn't strike me within the spirit of "avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that sources had to have dead tree versions to be considered reliable - this requirement is conspicuously absent from the policies which call for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". It also conflicts with Wikipedia's own debates on the reliability of Ars Technica and (less so) The Register:
- The Register: Independent news, views, opinions and reviews on the latest in the IT industry. Offices in London, Edinburgh, San Francisco and Mountain View.
- the impression I've always had was that the Register is extreme in views and quite often sensationalist. Very tabloid in reporting and quick to judge. Memsom (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ars Technica: specializes in original news and reviews, analysis of technology trends, and expert advice on topics ranging from the most fundamental aspects ...
- The reaction on Ars[26] to the Save the netbook article is fairly telling : most people seem pretty unmoved.
- Here it is again with sources but in any case I'm kind of over arguing for a cause that has no other purpose than to protect consumer choice. -- samj inout 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that sources had to have dead tree versions to be considered reliable - this requirement is conspicuously absent from the policies which call for "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". It also conflicts with Wikipedia's own debates on the reliability of Ars Technica and (less so) The Register:
- Even if those particular ones were there, I'd still say the same. I'll view it as notable when it gets into newspapers. BTW, you have a conflict of interest: per WP:COI, finding fault with the basis of every comment here doesn't strike me within the spirit of "avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You campaign is about your personal feelings towards this subject. It's not about protecting "consumer choice", because the average consumer does not know what the difference between a PDA, UMPC, Nettop, Laptop, Notebook, Webbook, Netbook or Googlewhack is. No one knows because it is a neologism, it isn't a universal term yet, especially outside of English speaking countries and has been dropped by many of the manufacturers whilst the Netbook trademark case is pending.The small laptops that are popular currently withh still exist no matter what they are called. Price points sell them, not buzzwords. Memsom (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A neologism with almost forty million hits? "Save the Netbooks" has almost twenty thousand alone and yet people are still arguing for its deletion. -- samj inout 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seems not everyone like what you are doing and questions your motives, and not every hit is even for your site. Google spiders pages, so if you have many pages repeating the same announcement and adding no extra content, it is possible you could reach that many hits. The term "save the netbooks" isn't exactly a unique moniker. Memsom (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A neologism with almost forty million hits? "Save the Netbooks" has almost twenty thousand alone and yet people are still arguing for its deletion. -- samj inout 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You campaign is about your personal feelings towards this subject. It's not about protecting "consumer choice", because the average consumer does not know what the difference between a PDA, UMPC, Nettop, Laptop, Notebook, Webbook, Netbook or Googlewhack is. No one knows because it is a neologism, it isn't a universal term yet, especially outside of English speaking countries and has been dropped by many of the manufacturers whilst the Netbook trademark case is pending.The small laptops that are popular currently withh still exist no matter what they are called. Price points sell them, not buzzwords. Memsom (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - COI, WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so WP:COI definitely has no place here, but how does WP:NOTWEBHOST apply? -- samj inout 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, if necessary. Meets notability under WP:WEB[27] andCOI is not grounds for deletion, though the editor's attitude is rather counterproductive. I see a lot of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT on this page. THF (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I wasn't voting IDONTLIKEIT, I was voting "It's a week old, can we really tell yet if it's notable?" As far as I'm concerned, if Psion wanted to start enforcing their trademark, they should have done it quite a while ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comment was "The COI issues here are too large to overlook.", yet neither COI nor event duration are valid reason to delete. If anything COI edits could be a *huge* source of energy, provided they are monitored for WP:NPOV and not vigorously stamped out as seen above - the article is factual bordering on cold and exactly zero instances of non-NPOV have been specifically identified (likely because there are none). It has almost twenty thousand search hits and it needs only TWO to satisfy WP:WEB -- samj inout 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Its pretty obvious that this is a politically motivated bad faith nomination. The people here screaming delete seem to be spouting off as many WP policies as they can and they need to go learn some new words. This article clearly meets WP:N and WP:V; and any COI or POV material can be dealt with by means other than a deletion. LetsdrinkTea 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Sorry for the violation of AGF. I do admit that this article has many serious issues, however since they can be fixed they do not warrant deletion of the article. I have found over 100k+ hits on google on this subject and there is no doubt in my mind that there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to get it through WP:N and WP:V. That said, my !vote to Keep this article stands. LetsdrinkTea 01:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would far rather this article was cleaned up by an impartial moderator and and locked from editing. Seems like the best course of action, given that neither the creator nor any contributers here (I include myself) are impartial enough to do that now. It's quite clear that SamJ is not going to be able to make edits without flack and more accusations flying about the place. Voice of reason must be enforced. Deletion is extreme, but allowing open editing is going invite trouble till the matter is resolved in court/USPTO hearing. Memsom (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Letsdrinktea claims "Its pretty obvious that this is a politically motivated bad faith nomination" -- Hello, what? There's no bad faith involved, and I'm not political in the slightest regarding this topic. Hell, I probably agree with the "political" position of the site the article is about on the issue. The question is whether we should give an encyclopedia article to a site less than a week old being used as advertising, and, no, no we can't. The attack on me was a pretty obvious violation of WP:AGF. You can't just assert it clearly meets WP:N and WP:V when it most certainly doesn't, not by a long shot. DreamGuy (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for those pesky twenty thousand search hits. COI doesn't matter. Duration doesn't matter. And you're one to talk about WP:AGF when your hardly WP:CIVIL nomination states that "it's just someone abusing Wikipedia as a press release for his cause". Last I checked it wasn't even in the top 10 hits so hardly great advertising - it'd be better off in the netbook article (which incidentally is where it'll end up if this is deleted). -- samj inout 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add in the hits for "Save the netbook" and other variants and you have well over 100k LetsdrinkTea 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.". -- samj inout 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's campaigning tone starts with its title. Since this is just an ephemeral news item, we don't need to work to keep this per WP:NOTNEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:SOAP, WP:COI, and notability concerns. The term is clearly notable, but the movement doesn't seem to be at this point. I might support a highly abridged merge to the main article. Dayewalker (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review Merge to Netbook. As the page is, it's a content-fork, and the website doesn't have notability beyond the controversy over the trademark. Once the self-citing is cut, there isn't a lot there. But NB that WP:COI is not a reason for deletion. THF (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Issue is better, and more neutrally, covered at Netbook#Trademarks. Most of the text in this article is promotional copy for the "save the netbooks" campaign.--Father Goose (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that when this article was created that section looked like this and it wasn't until User:842U was blocked that we were able to fix it. In fact without 842U's tendentious editing and constantly sweeping the issue under the carpet the campaign may never have even kicked off. Anyway although I maintain that the article meets WP:WEB the important parts have already been merged with netbook anyway. -- samj inout 04:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
random section break 2
- Delete. Leaving out the COI issue, as I stated on the talk page the sources used in the article do not satisfy notability requirements. They are mostly trivial sources, or press releases. None of the stated links fulfill the reliable, secondary sources requirement. A Google search is not a clear justification for keeping a page in Wikipedia. A site getting 20,000 or 30,000 page hits does not make it notable either. Those numbers are irrelevant. I would agree with the comment that the subject can be covered very well under the Netbook article, and this page comes off as propaganda for the website it covers. As for valid reasons to delete the article, see WP:Notability in addition to WP:WEB as all articles have to meet the general Notability requirements. To quote from that page: "'Presumed' means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not." Going by What Wikipedia Is Not: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Based on the evidence from these guidelines, this article should be deleted. Iarann (talk) 05:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Brand-new crusade. Wikipedia exists to dicument notability, not create it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As per his comments above, the author of the article appears to have gone ahead and merged his content into the Netbook page here [28]. Dayewalker (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussion should continue since the consensus currently seems to be to delete rather than merge. Consideration should also be given to blocking samj since he is flouting our policies and processes in pursuit of his non-encyclopedic campaign. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding irrelevant digression
|
---|
|
- Not yet notable. This can go as a subsection of netbook, if at all. DS (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I have seen comments and discussion in the online gadget communities regarding the use of the term (such as on engadget), I don't believe that a personal website designed to provide an apparently one-sided view of the topic is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. I've not seen the petition mentioned in any article written on any gadget blog that I've visited. It also doesn't make it apparent that the blog, twitter and facebook accounts are all run by the same person too. I also think the image on the same page [29] should also be considered a candidate for deletion - why is the word "netbook" printed three times even remotely notable? I've not seen it used on the site, nor has it been adopted by Gizmodo, Engadget or any other blog reporting on the issue. Howie ☎ 16:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Howard, there's a ref right next to it explaining the origin. http://gizmodo.com/5117806/psion-orders-websites-to-stop-using-the-term-netbook
- Delete, insufficient evidence of notability. There are lots of sources thoroughly documenting the dispute between Dell and Psion and the netbooks trademark issue: the dispute, the lawsuit, and responses to it are certainly appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia, and may even be appropriate for coverage in its own article. However, virtually nothing has been said about the "Save the Netbooks" campaign or website in reliable sources: it has been mentioned, but that's about it -- certainly not enough for the basis of an entire article. The level of sourcing demonstrated seems enough to me that we can mention the Save the Networks campaign in relation to the trademark dispute. but we can't sustain an article on it. The current article is unacceptable per WP:SOAP and WP:POVFORK. This dispute is already covered at Psion and possibly other places; this framing of it gives vastly unequal weight to those with a particular opinion, and serves to promote the campaign rather than report on it. Mangojuicetalk 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAP and insufficient notability. Mangojuice puts it better than I could. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for not having meeting the notability guidelines and for its promotional intent. Themfromspace (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Save the Netbooks has since broken the 200 member mark, has well over 100,000 google hits, around 5,000 blog hits and a dozen or so active news hits (two in the last hour). Notability is rapidly rising (at least in part due to today's scoop that Psion counter-sued Intel on Friday) and will likely continue to do so over the course of the lawsuits (which will take at least six months so it's not news). It was written in good faith with a view to being neutral, has since been critically reviewed and despite appearances is not for promotion (rather to objectively track the campaign - indeed only ~1% of visitors come from Wikipedia according to web stats and that includes the netbook article). In any case both WP:COI and WP:SOAP specifically allow for encyclopedic articles which do not violate other policies. The main opponent has withdrawn his vote and this vote at least (and perhaps this one) appear to be reactions to debates elsewhere (coming within a minute or two of this edit); even the nominator exhibited a certain amount of bad faith in this edit summary. I've stayed out of the discussion recently but given so much has changed since the nomination felt that an update was necessary. In summary, Wikipedia would be better off with this article than without it and while the reaction to the explicitly disclosed conflict of interest has been spectacular enough to prompt the writing of this essay, please try to be objective in your assessment. -- samj inout 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you use an essay you yourself wrote to try to support a COI free-advertising article about your own website? You're certainly ballsy in your violations of policy. DreamGuy (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote myself from above, going by What Wikipedia Is Not: " Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." Just because there is progress in the Netbook trademark case, does not add notability to Save the Netbooks. Save the Netbooks involvement in the affair is minor at best, and since the event itself does not have it's own article, this site is just not notable. The website being referenced in passing in those articles has no affect on your notability. To quote from WP:WEB where it discusses what is not notable: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address" No where, under any of the Notability guidelines I have seen, do member numbers or Google hits factor in. Iarann (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The citations listed in the references section is more than enough proof of notability. Just because something is new does not mean it's not notable. LK (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be snowed by the number of them. Most of those are from the site itself, and many others refer to the facts of the dispute without mentioning Save the Netbooks at all, while others mention it but don't describe the website or the campaign, but only the trademark issue. Mangojuicetalk 21:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Plenty of evidence that this dispute exists, however I don't see anything to convice me that this website is notable. --Leivick (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashdot currently features the site on its front page and the servers are taking a hammering. It has half a dozen direct references and/or links in the article, dedicated coverage elsewhere and is the only complete coverage of the situation available. -- samj inout 16:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean a heck of a lot more if you hadn't been the one to submit the story to /., Sam.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Misread attribution. Sorry. But, you still were the original submitter.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Also, all the uprated articles are talking about netbooks in general, _not_ your site. FAIL.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashdot posts are deemed notable by both other users and editors before hitting the front page and it was actually submitted by kdawson (who based it on an old post of ours from yesterday). Denying slashdotting is a signal/source of notability is a stretch when we have a dedicated slashdotted template. -- samj inout 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you miss the point. The event is notable, Slashdot linking to you is not. You have not been slashdotted, that would mean the post is about your site. It is not, the post is about Intel being countersued by Psion. What this would get you is mentioned in a Wikipedia article about the trademark dispute, not your own article. Read WP:WEB about what trivial coverage is. Iarann (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so basically the summary of this 50k+ of debate is that if we change the title of the article you'll all drop it? The coverage was previously forced out of the netbook article and has popped up in (at least) the following locations where it is clearly unmaintainable:
- Netbook (which is already starting to be overrun and we're just getting started)
- Netbook trademark (G7'd after 842U was banned and the content was restored)
- Save the Netbooks
- Psion
- Psion Teklogix
- Psion netBook
- What a complete and utter waste of time. -- samj inout 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what changing the article's name has to do with the fact that the website and campaign do not appear to be notable with regards to this topic. The trademark dispute and the type of computers this relates to are both notable, but your campaign website is more like a lobbyist group that has had - so far - little impact on both the parties involved in the dispute nor the general gadget community. If the website becomes notable - due to it's lobbying actually being seen to have a considerable effect on the trademark dispute - then I think it would be deemed worthy of inclusion. Until then, I would still say that it doesn't require an entry on Wikipedia. Howie ☎ 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so basically the summary of this 50k+ of debate is that if we change the title of the article you'll all drop it? The coverage was previously forced out of the netbook article and has popped up in (at least) the following locations where it is clearly unmaintainable:
- Again you miss the point. The event is notable, Slashdot linking to you is not. You have not been slashdotted, that would mean the post is about your site. It is not, the post is about Intel being countersued by Psion. What this would get you is mentioned in a Wikipedia article about the trademark dispute, not your own article. Read WP:WEB about what trivial coverage is. Iarann (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashdot posts are deemed notable by both other users and editors before hitting the front page and it was actually submitted by kdawson (who based it on an old post of ours from yesterday). Denying slashdotting is a signal/source of notability is a stretch when we have a dedicated slashdotted template. -- samj inout 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As Mr.Lenahan suggests, let's go through the criteria of WP:MUSIC. I think we can all agree that the ones we're focusing on are 1, 9 and 12 (10 refers to it being a theme or recurring music for a show). For 9, Duffbeerforme is right in saying it would be a bit of a stretch to say that AcaTunes and the like are "major music competitions". The fact that they may be "major for that type of music" (i.e. American College A Capella), as Hobit points out, isn't a listed criterion. As for 1, there weren't multiple non-trivial published works (the only newspaper given is the student paper, and the Today appearance wasn't a documentary). Finally, we come to the Today show appearance (PKT). Criterion 12 has the advantage of being pretty clear. The author makes a reasonable argument for using WP:ORG instead. Unfortunately, there are no "reliable published works". A one-off appearance as a "guest band", be it on a major show, is not a published work (a TV documentary about the band would be). If anyone can find an article in a major publication about this group (maybe someone at the New York Times watched the Today Show?), I (or any other admin) will recreate this without hesitation. yandman 08:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last Call (a cappella)
- Last Call (a cappella) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources found, despite searching. Seems like an entirely unnotable singing group. Dendlai (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find sources to verify notability. Their albums seem to be self-published-- I couldn't find them on Amazon.com. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: This article was finally restored after being deleted for awhile, and I will be trying to update it over the next few days, especially adding references and other useful links and information. Like most a cappella groups, we do not sell on Amazon.com, though should probably consider doing so (good idea) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastCallACappella (talk • contribs) 19:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replied on your talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn group, fails WP:BAND or WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no reliable independent sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources that demonstrate notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Page has been update with more information and more sources, and at current appears to satisfy requirements for a band, in that it has won or placed in a major music competition. Remember this is an a cappella group, not strictly a band, so most of the requirements for a group to be a 'band' on wikipedia are not obtainable by any a cappella group since they are on an entirely different music circuit. In fact, most college a cappella groups are closer to 'student groups' than 'bands', and I feel they should be treated as such. So yes, if you compare Last Call to professional bands, Last Call is lacking on notability, but within a cappella I'd hardly say Last Call's achievements certainly do warrant them their own page. Therefore, I have removed Last Call as a musical artist and hope to keep them as a student a cappella group. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastCallACappella (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- With the re-write, they certainly seem to meet notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article now shows sourcing and notability. No policy-based reason left to delete as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless the awards or competitions are shown to be major. Independent coverage is on the trivial side. One tv appearance is not enough for me. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Duffbeerforme. At some universities, Cornell being one of them, a cappella groups are far from rare, and my inclination is to presume such groups non-notable unless there is clear evidence otherwise. (As an aside, the article's statement "Last Call was officially formed in 1993 by few Cornell men who felt Cornell needed a new kind of a cappella group, one that loved to entertain." sounds like an insult to the other a cappella groups at Cornell, implying that the others either don't entertain or do so only grudgingly.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Youtubes of their Today show appearance clinches it for me - national exposure. PKT(alk) 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student club at a single school, passes neither WP:ORG nor WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (I closed this early because this was technically a review of an earlier deletion and not a regular AFD) Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gruvis Malt
- Gruvis Malt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has been speedied due to lack of proof of notability, then moved to user space for reworking. Primary contributor has in good faith tried to rework the material to establish notability, and has requested an AfD to solicit opinions regarding notability and suitability. I've no objections re: a speedy close if there is support for the band's notability. Ckatzchatspy 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found some newspaper articles about Gruvis Malt (at Highbeam Research). Some of these are just ads for them playing at a specific venue, but some are interviews/reviews by real newspapers. Unfortunately, these aren't all free, but I've found some of the articles (look on the Gruvis Malt talk page. --Ccomics88 (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and add the *right* sources this time Google News has plenty of RS hits for them. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Jclemens (talk · contribs), there are sources to support a claim to notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Included the news sources from Google in the article. --Ccomics88 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article is now well-sourced and does enough to establish notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made some general improvements to the wording and punctuation of the article as part of the Article Rescue Squadron. Magnetic Rag (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above. EagleFan (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interreligious organisation
- Interreligious organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:LINKFARM and not much else, really. Guy (Help!) 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to list I suggest removing all of the red links and converting this into a list, so it is no longer a wikilink farm posing as an article. The Seeker 4 Talk 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of them are weblinks, not wikilinks. And the ones which are wikilinks are usually not to articles on the organisations, just on the community in which they exist or some other related topic. Almost all of these are organisations which have, and should have, no article. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but remove anything that only has an external link. This could be made into a list with a short description of each organisation. —Snigbrook 22:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment shouldn't the title be interfaith organization? Or ecumenical organisation? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep maybe as list. The great majority of the wikilinks are to specific articles on the organizations, just did a bit of wikification of some unlinked ones, and many of the weblinked ones should have their own articles.John Z (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as list and but only for organisations with wikipedia articles..--Sloane (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did it myself. --Sloane (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Lack of sources addressed Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MoneyWeek
- MoneyWeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
* Delete - Non-notable "investment" magazine (blacklisted on Wikipedia for spam) with no notability established. Attempts to find proper sources only uncover circulation information (~35,000 per week). NJGW (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this article detailing the magazine's launch? There is also this interview with the then-editor (although admitedly may be more suitable as a source for her own entry page). Dami99 (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: proposed in view of sources here, here and editor interview here. Dami99 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are certainly enough sources in the article now to demonstrate notability. I would also invite the nominator to remove the scare quotes from '"investment" magazine' - whatever you think of notability I don't think you can have any doubt that this is an investment (without quotes) magazine. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on references turned up since this AfD began. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I withdraw the nomination based on the interview with the editor. Other refs help, but that one actually asserts some notability per market share and given their notable editor. NJGW (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Budget advocacy
- Budget advocacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research on a topic that is not notable
The article 'Budget advocacy' appears to be original research by the author of the page. As far as I am aware there is no need for a Wikipedia article with this name. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry as i am new contributor, may not be doing things that i should be, but i feel that there is need of this page/article that can serve as guidance to people working on budget advocacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikhashrestha (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such objectives are not unappreciated, but you need to imagine what would ensue if Wikipedia allowed “original research”, and especially a competition amongst editors for which “original research” would prevail. The way that Wikipedia resolves the problem is basically to make articles a recapitulation of material from “reliable sources”. Sometimes the result fills a scholar with woe, but it's the resolution that has achieved general support. And sometimes the results are actually quite good. —SlamDiego←T 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a good faith contribution, but I don't think that it positively contributes to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the page as it stands right now is unverified original research, and I see no easy way to clean it up. The is no verification that the concept itself is notable to wikipedia standards (see Wikipedia:Notability). It's not even clear from the page exactly what budget advocacy is. If external sources can be provided that show that this concept is notable, then I suggest removing the original research and creating a stub. LK (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
This is not how to launch an AfD discussion! Please read the instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. —SlamDiego←T 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)It appears now to be in good order. —SlamDiego←T 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete without prejudice. It seems to me that it is plausible that a suitable article could be assembled, but the present form of the article is too far removed from suitability for it to be allowed to stand. We would of course need an article that draws its components from “reliable sources”, and that avoids “synthesis”. I think that the creator of this article should be encouraged to work on the article in userspace, and to bring his or her efforts to the attention of an administrator and that of editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics, so that it can be critiqued and he or she can be given some guidance in conforming to established policies. —SlamDiego←T 01:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lemoon CMS
- Lemoon CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N WP:Web and no WP:RS, another software advert. 16x9 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hardly any discussion of this CMS that I can find. There are some swedish sites that I can't read that may or may not provide useful information, but I think most of them are unedited copies of press releases, hence not independent. Hint for searchers: googling '"+lemoon" cms' skips the sites that are talking about 'lemon cms', which appears to be much more popular. JulesH (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing much interest in this product either. zero google news, book, or scholar hits. Other google hits are press releases from companies that sell products that support this product.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desktop replacement computer
- Desktop replacement computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete as the term "desktop replacement" is used almost exclusively to refer to large, powerful notebook computers that are capable of replacing a desktop; if it belongs anywhere it's as a footnote the laptop computer article and it already has a concise definition there.
The article also mentions "desknote" (?!?) which is something different again - according to webopedia they "do not have battery capacity and, while they are portable, cannot be used for mobile computing"... save that the term has been virtually unused in years; at best it should be a separate definition in the wiktionary. In any case the quality of this article is sufficiently poor and it's been tagged as such for long enough that it should go. -- samj inout 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I fail to see how this article is any less valid than the rest of the Computer_sizes template, like Subnotebook, Desktop computer, Handheld PC, etc. Should all the Computer_sizes articles be merged into computer? The suggestion that "desktop replacement" is a clear category does not impugn its value as an article; quite the opposite: a clear division provides an excellent place to break large domains of knowledge into more specific and detailed articles. – 74 18:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, well-known and notable term. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep standard commercial terminology, multiple articles available discussing and explaining the concepts, usually in the context of comparative reviews. DGG (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources show it's not a neologism and a useful, regular phrase. Ancemy (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok and desknote which seems to be something different altogether? -- samj inout 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From log [31] ""Desknote" poorly defined, and appears to be only a specific brand of computer. Further, "Desktop replacement computer" refers to almost exactly the same class of computer, but is a significantly more common term." Tothwolf (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not the correct place to discuss issues with the contents of an article. Please use the talk page instead (where this issue has already been discussed). – 74 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Commonly used term, worthy of it's own article. Artw (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well researched and understood term - the article needs slightly better sources but that an editoral isssue not an administrative one. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ok this all makes sense so I'd happily withdraw my AfD nom based on this feedback. -- samj inout 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Punters
- The Punters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nominator (which is not me, see history) didn't specify reason. I personally think we should keep this article. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any evidence that they meet the WP:BAND criteria for inclusion. Their record labels are redlinks, and the article references no third-party sources. Powers T 14:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete If anyone finds sources that prove even half of the things this article claims, this band would be notable. However, it still fails WP:BAND as well as the General Notability Guidelines. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They don't appear to be notable, I can't find anything about them through the first several pages of googlesearching (apart from this page). --GedUK 14:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does look a tad like a fake, doesn't it. :) Debresser (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The band is entirely real, if the nominator were questioning that he would have nominated it for Speedy Deletion. However, the band meets neither the General Notability guidelines, nor the Notability criteria for bands. In order to be included in Wikipedia, a subject must be both Verifiable and Notable. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bamboozled again! I was under the impression that you were under the impression that the reason the other contributers chose Delete was verifiability. In any case, with the right search terms [32], Google returns a few results. Then again, it could be an elaborate hoax. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was and am. The question is whether they did their research. You did, so now at least I believe the article is not a fake. Perhaps keep it as a stub Debresser (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! Still fails notability criteria, though. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, i couldn't find anything about them. I never said they were a hoax. But just because the band exists doesn't mean they're notable enough to have their own article. --GedUK 15:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EIBS
- EIBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:N, WP:WEB. 16x9 (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article was missing an AfD tag. I've tagged it but hold no opinion on deletion. Powers T 14:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. EIBS Ltd is a UK based supplier of content management system. - yet another non-consumer online business using Wikipedia as a free ad server. The only showing of importance is a client list, which means that there is no showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy Currently an advert, but a google news search indicates, the subject itself might just be notable enough. Let's give the author some guidance and see what happens. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:*It is an essay but WP:ITSUSEFUL. Most if not all of those results are not about this product. 16x9 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I'm not strongly against this one but I don't think that notability is established. The Google News search linked above has numerous hits but the vast majority of those are completely unrelated to this subject (apparently "Eibs" is not uncommon as a surname) and almost all of the relevant hits are press releases. I did find some limited coverage by the Nottingham Evening Post but I don't think this is enough. -- Atamachat 17:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. The discussion lends itself more to the opinion of merging the material, but as several commentators have noted, there is little or nothing to merge. With no indications within the discussion that redirects are appropriate, I will not close this with a consensus to merge and redirect, but editors should not be prevented from setting up redirects to the main article Fritzpoll (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German Student (radio) and other Radio Tales articles
- The_German_Student_(radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Please note that these articles have already been nominated for speedy deletion and that the result was keep. However, I still think that they should be considered for deletion mainly because:
- Since the speedy keep, User:Soundout has been blocked for 30 days for link spamming. Each article indeed clearly aims at promoting Radio Tales, Winnie Waldron and Winifred Phillips (names that are mentioned multiple times in every single article). This cast doubts on the integrity of the articles.
- The introduction of each article is copied and pasted from one article to the next.
- The core of each article is a summary of the source material. However you can already find this summary in the main article so it's redundant here. For example, the plot summary in The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) is roughly the same as the one in The Yellow Wallpaper.
- Notability is questionable. Although the source material is notable, the radio dramatizations are not.
- Additionally, the articles are not well-sourced (they only appear to be so). Most of the references only apply to the Radio Tales series as whole, or to the source material, but not to the individual shows.
- The Awards, Media, Broadcast History and Product Information are also copied and pasted from one article to the next. Some of these sections, such as Awards, actually apply to the Radio Tales series and not the individual articles. So if we remove the redundant sections, there's basically nothing remaining in the article.
So I would suggest to delete these articles and possibly merge them with the article of the source material (i.e. merging The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) into The Yellow Wallpaper) - possibly by creating a "radio dramatizations" section in each article.
DGG suggested to do the following: "Add to the list in the main article (Radio Tales) the date of broadcast and, where it isn't obvious, the work presented." I think it makes sense since the date of broadcast is really the only piece of information that we need to keep since it cannot be found elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Other nominated articles:
- The Lost World (radio)
- Edith Wharton's Journey (radio)
- The Canterville Ghost (radio)
- The Boarded Window (radio)
- Chicago 2065 (radio)
- Arabian Nights Three (radio)
- Arabian Nights Two (radio)
- Arabian Nights (radio)
- Apocalypse (radio)
- Celtic Hero (radio)
- A Matter of Prejudice (radio)
- Chopin's Locket (radio)
- Edgar Allan Poe's Predicament (radio)
- 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (radio)
- Charles Dickens' Ghost Story (radio)
- Beowulf (radio)
- Edgar Allan Poe's Valdemar (radio)
- The Fall of the House of Usher (Radio)
- Feet of Clay (radio)
- Fifth Dimension (radio)
- Fortress of Doom (radio)
- The Ghost of Wuthering Heights (radio)
- The Gift of the Magi (radio)
- Gulliver's Travels (radio)
- Homer's Odyssey (radio)
- Homer's Odyssey Two (radio)
- Homer's Odyssey Three (radio)
- Hop-Frog (radio)
- The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (radio)
- Ice Maiden (radio)
- The Invisible Man (radio)
- The Island of Dr. Moreau (radio)
- Jason and the Argonauts (radio)
- O. Henry's Thanksgiving (radio)
- Otherworld (radio)
- Owl Creek Bridge (radio)
- The Phantom of the Opera (radio)
- The Pit and the Pendulum (radio)
- Silence, A Fable (radio)
- Sleepy Hollow (radio)
- Stephen Crane's Dark Brown Dog (radio)
- Voltaire's Planet Trek (radio)
- War of the Worlds (radio 2001)
- Revolt of Mother (radio)
- Asteroid (radio)
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (radio)
- The Time Machine (Radio)
- Dracula's Guest (radio)
- Journey to the Center of the Earth (radio)
- Laughin' in Meetin' (radio)
- The Lone Indian (radio)
- Lord of the Celts (radio)
- Masque of the Red Death (radio)
- Moon Voyager (radio)
- Mrs. Manstey's View (radio)
- The Mummy (radio)
- New England Nun (radio)
- O. Henry's Last Leaf
- The Tell-Tale Heart (radio)
- Watchers (radio)
- Frankenstein (radio)
- The Birthmark (radio)
Laurent (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AllThis radio series has won multiple awards and has a large number of sources, showing that not just the original source material, but the radio dramatizations are. The intro is not copy-pasted, though elements are the same since they are part of the same series. The summary of the source material is too long, but that is only part of the articles, simple editing should take care of that. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Awards, Media, Broadcast History and Product Information are also copied and pasted from one article to the next. These sections actually belongs to the main Radio Tales article in my opinion. So if we shorten the plot summary, remove the redundant sections, there's basically nothing remaining. That's really my main point - the articles are disguised advertisments for Radio Tales and - if you look closely - don't actually have any real contents. Additionnally, it's the Radio Tales series (which already have its own article) which received the awards, not the individual shows. Laurent (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Delete. Information and citations are covered at Radio Tales so these articles are unneccessary duplication. Edward321 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Awards, Media, Broadcast History and Product Information are also copied and pasted from one article to the next. These sections actually belongs to the main Radio Tales article in my opinion. So if we shorten the plot summary, remove the redundant sections, there's basically nothing remaining. That's really my main point - the articles are disguised advertisments for Radio Tales and - if you look closely - don't actually have any real contents. Additionnally, it's the Radio Tales series (which already have its own article) which received the awards, not the individual shows. Laurent (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I suggest that they be merged. The plot sections do not provide any new information not already found elsewhere. The awards sections do not mention awards won by that particular story. They mention awards won by the series. So, a main article can have info on the series, a list of stories, and a list of awards. Each story the list can link to the main story article. -- kainaw™ 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into main article. This one is tricky on first glance; kudos to Laurent for noticing the identical content. Powers T 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge' into the Radio Tales article. Awards appear to have been awarded to the series as a whole, not the individual radio plays. I don't think there's much point in having a 'radio dramatisations' section in the play articles, perhaps just a line linknig to the Radio Plays article, as a whole section is likely to be a very short section. --GedUK 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a new article, List of Radio Tales plays. There's too much information here that would swamp the top level article, but a list of the individual plays could easily cover everything relevant. JulesH (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was thinking about nominating these myself, but it slipped my mind. There is already a list of the adaptations in Radio Tales, and the articles consist mainly of plot summaries of the works of fiction on which the radio shows are based; so I don't see much potential for merging. Most of these literary works have been adapted many, many times for presentation in various media, including radio, and we don't need an article for each individual adaptation. (Brief mentions of such adaptations, depending on their importance, are often included in the articles on the literary works themselves, though.) Deor (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete all I actually nominated all of these articles for deletion (see here) soon after they were created, seeing that they were about nonnotable radio shows and created by single-purpose account only using Wikipedia to promote the shows. The AfD was speedy kept with little to no analysis of how and why the articles were created with excuses like "a lot of hard work went into them". Since then other editors have become wary of the creator's orignal intent and he has now been blocked. Each of these articles is about a nonnotable show created with a conflict of interest and each doesn't belong here. Themfromspace (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given that the Radio Tales article already lists the individual shows. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Wikipedia has no place for spam.--Sloane (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge This is excessive detail. Add to the list in the main article the date of broadcast and, where it isn't obvious, the work presented. DGG (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge following DGG's useful suggestion above. These entries do not have sufficient notability to stand as articles. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Spammy, non-notable with pointless copypasta details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: insufficient notability. Details already located elsewhere on wikipedia. JamesBurns (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep of ALL and then list seperately so that issues of each may be properly addressed one-by-one on each's individual merits. Listing 63 artilces in one MASSIVE AfD, though it may be easier to do so, is a disservice to wikipedia and editors that might attempt correction.... and makes it darn near impossible. If any have won awards, and can be shown to have won those awards, then individual articles are merited if such articles would overburden existing related articles. Tag for expansion and sourcing and let all 63 be properly improved with the WP:DEADLINE wiki establishes for such improvement. Since they CAN be improved, it improves Wiki that they be so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WP:DEADLINE, and indeed there's no reason to rush to delete them. However, one thing we shouldn't forget is that the articles are borderline spam (to say the least), so there is no reasons to leave them on Wikipedia indefinitely just in case somebody, some day, found out something more to say about them. Laurent (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In agreement that current versions can greatly benefit from copyedit and additionl sourcing. My difficulty is that even if only 3 or 4 or even 15 might be suitable for individual articles, massing them altogether in one AfD kind of paints the whole bunch with the same brush... and further, if even one were to be made to absolutley shine, it would be lost in the crowd and likely swept off of wiki with the rest. I like attempting rescues if a subject can be brought up to standards... which is why I joined the Article Rescue Squad. And certainly, improving one article to meet concerns at an AfD can be time-consuming... but 63 at once? Ouch. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WP:DEADLINE, and indeed there's no reason to rush to delete them. However, one thing we shouldn't forget is that the articles are borderline spam (to say the least), so there is no reasons to leave them on Wikipedia indefinitely just in case somebody, some day, found out something more to say about them. Laurent (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion Might it be possible to get an admin (I'm thinking there may be a tool to help) or just an editor to copy the text from each of these onto a userspace? That would allow the time to develop those that are developable, whilst ditching the ones that aren't. They can then be reintroduced as standalone articles or just small sections within the parent article. That also means that these versions are removed (which seems to be the way this AfD is going). --GedUK 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:USERFYing an article is always an option. If this AfD closes a "delete" or "delete all", all you need do is ask the closer to Userfy them to a workspace which will them give time to bring what ones as can be improved to address any concerns brought up at this AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I don't know quite why i phrased it like that, i knew perfectly well it was possible! I think what i was subtly driving at is would you want them on your userspace for the time being to work on, as you've shown the most interest. Clearly the ARS could be drafted in to help. I don't mind them going in my userspace, but i know i have no time, nor much inclination, to work on them. --GedUK 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's why DGG's suggestion is good. It's still reasonably fair to the articles, and it's also a much simpler solution than doing some massive editing / research work to try to save each individual article. Eventually, I just hope that the articles won't stay just because it's so much work to deal with them that nobody will be bothered to do anything about them. Laurent (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To anybody objecting to a mass-nomination: have you actually looked at these articles? They're very formulaic and all the same. All created by the same user, and all follow the same formula. If this wouldn't be bundled there would be dozens of AfD's and each one would have the same !votes from the same people (probably copy/pasted from one to the next). The mass bundle is a huge service to those who patrol AfDs, can you imagine reasonably asking people to vote on all of these? Themfromspace (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's why DGG's suggestion is good. It's still reasonably fair to the articles, and it's also a much simpler solution than doing some massive editing / research work to try to save each individual article. Eventually, I just hope that the articles won't stay just because it's so much work to deal with them that nobody will be bothered to do anything about them. Laurent (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm leaning towards delete (the article titles aren't likely search terms), however, I would like to see if there is a way for one of these to surpass the notability of the main Radio Times audio play article, describing the creation and reception of one radio play to great depth beyond "winning an award". Since these are all retellings of existing works of fiction, there's no need for going into plot details (and unless sourced, any changes in the plot for the radio edit would be OR). Editorially I feel a better article can be obtained by merging all these to the parent and describing the notable aspects there, but I remain open to the possibly of expansion beyond that. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect all to Radio Tales per DGG. Much of these pages are duplicated content; what isn't can probably fit in a short list in the series article, besides plot summary which can be found by linking to the articles on each of the original works. DHowell (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. The awards don't make it notable, but the series itself is notable. Notable series get their own episode list, by current wikipedia rules. I'd also like to point out, to all those who were saying Merge, that you can not merge that much information into one article. The Radio Tales article already list the names of all the series. No way to fit even a brief summary of all of them to it. Also, I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al All of this has been nominated before. I would like to point out also, that looking through the articles, I note that some are "part of an award winning season", and others just list what the program itself got. So the show itself gets an award for various years, but not the individual episodes. Every episode on a television show one season wouldn't be notable because that season won an award. It is however notable for being part of that award winning series, as via wikipedia episode lists policy(I'm sure they have one somewhere). Dream Focus 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable series get their own episode list, by current wikipedia rules" - there's no problem with that, however by current Wikipedia standards, TV series, no matter how notable, don't get an article per episode. Have a look at the episode list on Lost (season 1). It's perfectly possible to put some reasonable amount of information within a list. In the case of Radio Tales, we can have the show title, the date, a link to the original material, and a brief plot summary (only when necessary since a plot summary is already in the source material article). I don't think that would take that much space. Again, most of the articles are made of sections that are copied and pasted from one article to the next. So we can take this copied and pasted information, put it once on the main article and we are done with it. Laurent (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations to DreamFocus showing the last AfD as a speedy keep. Well done. I was not aware of it when I first opined a keep. Now I feel vindicated. And looking over the comparison to Lost (season 1), we're talking about 63 shows here, not 24. And these are 63 different shows... not 24 episodes of a comon series with the same cast listings. Trying to merge that much information would either result in the main article being tremendously overburdened, or the merged informations so whittled down as to reusult in a grave loss to Wiki. Its not as if we're cutting down trees here... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While pointing out that Lost has 24 episodes and this series has 63, you should also note that each episode of Lost is unique. It is not a presentation of a previous work that already has an extensive article on Wikipeida. If an episode of Lost was nothing more than a presentation of Hamlet, the episode list would not contain a summary of Hamlet. It would contain a link to Hamlet. Nobody would complain. However, in this series, there is a dire need to repeat the entire summary of a book that has already been summarized in the book's article. What is the true benefit in doing that? Are we that worried about a user having to click a link to read the main book summary? -- kainaw™ 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations to DreamFocus showing the last AfD as a speedy keep. Well done. I was not aware of it when I first opined a keep. Now I feel vindicated. And looking over the comparison to Lost (season 1), we're talking about 63 shows here, not 24. And these are 63 different shows... not 24 episodes of a comon series with the same cast listings. Trying to merge that much information would either result in the main article being tremendously overburdened, or the merged informations so whittled down as to reusult in a grave loss to Wiki. Its not as if we're cutting down trees here... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not merge them all into an article separate from Radio Tales, say List of episodes of Radio Tales? -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be amenable into helping create one MONSTER article that includes all 63 sub articles... but we can have that merge discussion after these rae kept. Decent suggestion. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These episodes have to meet WP:N in order to have an aritcle about them. Radio tales meets WP:N, but none of the individual episodes do. The best place to mention these is in the main Radio Tales article. Listing each episode of a series as their own articles when they are nonnotable is using Wikipedia as a directory of information. The only episodes that belong here are those that are notable. Notability of the episodes is not inherited from the main series. They should be mentioned and given their due weight on the main article. A List of Radio tales episodes would be yet another indiscriminate list, which we already have too much of on Wikipedia. The list would have to satisfy WP:N in itself, and nothing has been written on the collective body of Radio Tales episodes. A mention in the main article is sufficient. Themfromspace (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- False. These are not "episodes" as in television. However, even to consider them similarly, if the information would overburden the parent article, seperate articles are allowed. The informations if combined into a WP:List would not be indiscriminate, unless someone vandalizes the newer article to make it so. A mere "mention" would turn something worthwhile into something rivial and thus diminish wiki. Not quite a compromise. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
- These episodes have to meet WP:N in order to have an aritcle about them. Radio tales meets WP:N, but none of the individual episodes do. The best place to mention these is in the main Radio Tales article. Listing each episode of a series as their own articles when they are nonnotable is using Wikipedia as a directory of information. The only episodes that belong here are those that are notable. Notability of the episodes is not inherited from the main series. They should be mentioned and given their due weight on the main article. A List of Radio tales episodes would be yet another indiscriminate list, which we already have too much of on Wikipedia. The list would have to satisfy WP:N in itself, and nothing has been written on the collective body of Radio Tales episodes. A mention in the main article is sufficient. Themfromspace (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be amenable into helping create one MONSTER article that includes all 63 sub articles... but we can have that merge discussion after these rae kept. Decent suggestion. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable series get their own episode list, by current wikipedia rules" - there's no problem with that, however by current Wikipedia standards, TV series, no matter how notable, don't get an article per episode. Have a look at the episode list on Lost (season 1). It's perfectly possible to put some reasonable amount of information within a list. In the case of Radio Tales, we can have the show title, the date, a link to the original material, and a brief plot summary (only when necessary since a plot summary is already in the source material article). I don't think that would take that much space. Again, most of the articles are made of sections that are copied and pasted from one article to the next. So we can take this copied and pasted information, put it once on the main article and we are done with it. Laurent (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Schmidt, MICHAEL Q, Dream, notable articles. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I was wondering about why it was okay to nominate 63 articles from Radio Tales in a masse effort when just 4 months ago, a similar albeit smaller effort at deleting 22 of them was speedy kept. I looked at the WP:POLICY WP:ATD#Deletion_discussion and read "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."
- But since there were no delete opininions at that prior AfD, it would be difficult to "improve" what a consensus of editors already overwhelmingly thought worth keeping. At that earlier nomination, every opining editor found no merit in the then nom's reasoning and the AfD was closed as speedy keep.
- That the article's author was blocked for link-spamming elsewhere at a later time does not remove the sound resons for the earlier speedy keep.
- If the article's introductions seem copied from each other is a matter for copyedit and not deletion.
- If the core of each article is a summary from elsewhere, does not address that this "core" has been reasonably expanded in the article's themselves to make each unique. Such "core summary" exists on all such child-articles, such as the Lost (season 1) example given above. It is standard and accepted per guideline so as to contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject.
- To say now that "notability is questionable" contravenes the 100% consensus of the previous AfD which did indeed find notability just 4 months ago.
- The inclusions of the Awards shows the notability... of individual episodes and the series as a whole. Any article can be subjectively dis-assembled until nothing is left.
- Nothing had changed since the last AfD to lessen or remove that consensus of speedy keep, other than to now increase the quanitty be articles being questioned from 22 to 63. Isn't this considered a form of WP:Policy shopping in that the same articles are again being sent to AfD with differing reasons in the hopes to this time get a different decision? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments may seem overwhelming to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong.
- Nobody is claiming that having a user blocked will override a speedy keep. The point is that the previous keep was a "speedy" keep. Not a "well-though-out" keep.
- The point is that the entire content of the articles is just copied from other articles. So, what makes the articles unique? If they are not unique in any way, are they notable? Many people here have voiced the opinion that they are not notable on their own.
- How does copying a summary of a book to a summary of some people reading the book increase a reader's understanding of the subject?
- Previously, it was up for speedy deletion. In speedy deletion, you keep if there is any reason at all to keep. This is not speedy deletion. This is a regular deletion where we take time to discuss notability.
- The inclusion of awards shows notability of the series, not individual episodes. Are you claiming that because a movie wins an Oscar, we should have an article about every person who worked on the movie and claim notability because they were a small part of something that won an award?
- You have repeatedly claimed that merging it into the main article would make the main article too long. That is because you appear to be refusing to discuss what others have suggested: Merge it into the main article and link to the summaries of the articles that already exist. If you want to know what one of the stories is about, just read the story's article. There is no need to have a separate article that repeats the entire summary. -- kainaw™ 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., as far as I can tell, the consensus here is that the individual radio shows are not notable and that they shouldn't have their own articles. Seriously, have a look at the "awards" sections - all of them roughly say that "the Radio Tales series has received numerous awards, including three additional Gracie Allen Awards in 2004, etc.". However this applies to the series not the indivudal shows. This section is clearly just there to give some weight to the article because without it there would just be a plot summary and most likely the articles would have been speedy deleted. Nobody is trying to do WP:Policy shopping here. I sincerely believe that these articles have nothing to do on Wikipedia, and that they were previously kept for the wrong reasons (most likely people didn't really went through the articles and noticed that they were all exactly the same except for the plot summary). Even in the previous discussion, a majority was at least suggesting a merge (4 out of the 6 people who voted!), so considering a merge seems perfectly reasonable to me. Laurent (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments may seem overwhelming to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong.
- Note: this article has been listed on the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Ikip (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can consider a merge, and said so above to llywrch. And even ignoring the earlier Speedy Keep of the 22, Policy instructs that merge discussions take place on the article's talk page... or in this case 63 talk pages (chuckle)... and that an AfD is not the place for such. So... let's keep these, close down this AfD, and work together toward a merge of all into a new article as suggested by User:JulesH, llywrch, and others. I am quite ammenable to that, and feel inclined to politely disregard the opinion of the person who previously nominated 22 of these articles that were speedy kept. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly oppose keeping these for a merge per my above rationale. Spam shouldn't be incorporated into the main article, it should be removed entirely. Themfromspace (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nom of the previous failed AfD, your WP:IDONTLIKEIT COI is apparent. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My only interest here is getting rid of spam and promotion, of which I do all over Wikipedia, not just in AfD. Stop your bad faith accusations. Themfromspace (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you tried this before, no one seemed to agree with you that they were spam or promotion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change. Go to his page and you'll see others pointing out that his behaviour was inappropriate, and he has been blocked for it. Others here seem to agree as well. Sometimes it takes awhile for the truth to set in about an editor's motives. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're still talking about the articles, rather than the author, others disagreed with you before. Speedy keep? You miss that? And yes, consensus can change, but it should not take even an perception of possible WP:Policy shopping to do so... and just 4 months after that speedy keep. Let's discuss the possibility of a merge into one article and how that one article can be brought up to standards. So instead of blanketing the discussion with negatively charged words such as "spam" and "indiscriminate", let's work toward creating something to improve the project. Yes? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change. Go to his page and you'll see others pointing out that his behaviour was inappropriate, and he has been blocked for it. Others here seem to agree as well. Sometimes it takes awhile for the truth to set in about an editor's motives. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you tried this before, no one seemed to agree with you that they were spam or promotion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My only interest here is getting rid of spam and promotion, of which I do all over Wikipedia, not just in AfD. Stop your bad faith accusations. Themfromspace (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nom of the previous failed AfD, your WP:IDONTLIKEIT COI is apparent. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly oppose keeping these for a merge per my above rationale. Spam shouldn't be incorporated into the main article, it should be removed entirely. Themfromspace (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can consider a merge, and said so above to llywrch. And even ignoring the earlier Speedy Keep of the 22, Policy instructs that merge discussions take place on the article's talk page... or in this case 63 talk pages (chuckle)... and that an AfD is not the place for such. So... let's keep these, close down this AfD, and work together toward a merge of all into a new article as suggested by User:JulesH, llywrch, and others. I am quite ammenable to that, and feel inclined to politely disregard the opinion of the person who previously nominated 22 of these articles that were speedy kept. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ← I'm calling a spade a spade. This is advertising. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. We must get rid of the advertising somehow. The information here isn't suitable even if it wouldn't be advertising, so the only rational solution is to delete it. Go back to what it was like before the blocked spammer, which is what he is, came here. If any of these episodes ever become notable then we can have an article on them. At the present time, these articles are a detriment to Wikipedia and should be removed. Themfromspace (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, false. Unless of course you are then inferring that everything on Wikipedia be considered "advertising" if presenting information about a subject is "advertising" that subject. That the author was temp-blocked is not relevent to these discussions. It is improving the articles that we discuss. You are attacking the message because of some later action of the messenger. Again, let's discuss how these might be melded into a single article that meets your concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The messenger created these articles, his actions and bias are at the heart of the articles themselves. If they were merely corrupted by him I would have reverted them back to a usable form, but the articles themselves shouldn't be here as they were created with promotional intent, and there doesn't appear to be any way they could be cleaned to meet Wikipedia's policies. And just to get us on the right page, I'm not discussing improving them, I'm discussing deleting them per all of my statements here. This isn't a merge discussion, this is a deletion discussion. Themfromspace (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, false. Unless of course you are then inferring that everything on Wikipedia be considered "advertising" if presenting information about a subject is "advertising" that subject. That the author was temp-blocked is not relevent to these discussions. It is improving the articles that we discuss. You are attacking the message because of some later action of the messenger. Again, let's discuss how these might be melded into a single article that meets your concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I know I'm just another voice in a chorus here, but honestly these articles add nothing to Wikipedia. The series these episodes belong to is notable as a whole, and the original stories being portrayed in these episodes are also notable, but all of that exists as separate articles already. Having all of these articles in Wikipedia is like having a separate article for each of Abraham Lincoln's fingers (and I don't care how well-written the article on the right pinky is). -- Atamachat 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as nothing has changed since I made this argument the last time nearly two dozen of these were put up for mass deletion. Each article is still well-referenced with significant individual content relating to the episode, not merely the series as a whole, and appears to meet the standards for both notability and verifiability. That an editor involved with some of these has been blocked is not relevant to whether the articles should be kept or deleted, as long as they meet the other criteria. AfD is not cleanup nor is it Request for Merging. - Dravecky (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give examples as to which of the episodes meet WP:N? I don't think any have been covered in any depth by multiple, independant third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before saying that the radio shows are notable and the articles well-sourced, did you really read through a few - let's say 10-15 - of these articles? I've just picked 10 of them randomly, and I've actually found that they are not well-referenced. All the references apply to the series as a whole or to the source material but never to the individual shows. Finally, in my opinion it matters that the user has been blocked. It means that we need to look more closely at the articles since there's now a strong reason to believe that they've been written exclusively to promote a company. Laurent (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd also like to point out that it is not proper AfD procedure to notify participants at previous AfDs (except article creators of course), although this has been done with this one. Also note that the
canvassernotifier also voted in this AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply extended a polite courtesy to those editors who had an interest in the previous AfD. I did not suggest anyone "vote" keep or delete. Informing editors who were part of an earlier process is a wikicourtesy too often forgotten. As a VERY limited, neutral, and friendly message, simply inviting comment, it was not canvasing. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The issue is one of clean up and trimming repeated material, perhaps even a merger, but as notability has been established I don't think deletion is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the relevant material is already on the main page. Which of these articles is notable and what sources do you have to back up that claim? I see most of the objections are procedural as some editors can't fathom a single AfD deleting so many articles, even if they are carbon copies of each other. Not a single person arguing to keep these articles has offered up any sources to prove their notability, even with dozens of subjects to choose from. All of the arguments are on procedural grounds, which are invalid as these articles are distinctly related to each other. They all share the same structure, sources (which don't demonstrate notability), and creator (who has been blocked for spamming). Themfromspace (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you consider "relevant" and what others might consider relevent are perhaps two different sides of the same coin. Working together to effect a proper merge into one article improves wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reminded of the Pokémon articles, which had dubious individual notability and lots of boilerplate that pretended to be relevant references when they were actually references about Pokémon as a whole. Those articles were merged to lists. Those lists are horrible. If someone comes up with some radical solution to this, that solution would be very helpful for the Pokémon articles. In the meantime, Radio Times is no Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike Pokemon, the plot of each of these episodes is already detailed in other articles right on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Moon Voyager (radio) can be reduced to:
- Moon Voyager: An adaptation of The First Men in the Moon by H. G. Wells, first broadcast on November 6th, 2001.
- What more is there to know? If you want the plot, it is in the First Men in the Moon article. If you want to know when it first broadcast, it is right there. If you want to know about who did it, it is in the main Radio Tales article which is the proper place for that little bullet line. This is why so many people keep voicing the opinion to merge. -- kainaw™ 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps cast? Production info? Reviews? Background on the specufic production? Comparisons betwen the original from the 30's? Those things that make them different and unique from each other and the books that inspired them? There are a number or ways an article can be expanded from one sentence you offer. By use of your logic, everything in the article The First Men in the Moon could itself be reduced to "The First Men in the Moon is a 1901 novel by H.G Wells that depicts a jouney to the moon", making it far less than a stub, and an incredible disservice to a peprerless "encyclopedia". It is the additional informations in any article that make it suitable for Wiki and that leada to greater understanding by the reader of an article's contents. These Radio Tales broadcasts can be expanded as well. However, and to repeat, although I still take issue with a mass AfD, I am amenable to combining all into an sourced, cogent, and notable article on an award-wining anthology series if the very existance of the 63 is so distasteful to some. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you've missed the point. Currently, the article on Moon Voyager does not contain anything unique. Therefore, linking to the articles which it copied from easily turns it into a one-liner. If you were to turn the First Men in the Moon article into a one-liner, you would need to link to an article that contains the story information. Your example did not do that. So, it appears that you claiming that we shouldn't reduce the article to a bullet point because it is possible that someone at some time in the future just might come along to make the article notable. What I am saying is that you are proposing we do it backwards. Make it a bullet point right now. At that magical time in the future when someone has notable things to write, expand it into a notable article. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that your argument would in turn reduce The First Men in the Moon to a one line stub and that the 63 articles can eventually be made suitable within the WP:DEADLINE to do so. That an article does not immediate shine, does not mean that they cannot be made to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we don't keep placeholder articles in the hope that someone might come along and write an actual article at some undetermined point in the future -- not when there is a perfectly good redirect target available. Only when the content specific to each production contained within the main Radio Tales article gets to be too much for that article, need we create articles, stubbed or otherwise. Powers T 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that your argument would in turn reduce The First Men in the Moon to a one line stub and that the 63 articles can eventually be made suitable within the WP:DEADLINE to do so. That an article does not immediate shine, does not mean that they cannot be made to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you've missed the point. Currently, the article on Moon Voyager does not contain anything unique. Therefore, linking to the articles which it copied from easily turns it into a one-liner. If you were to turn the First Men in the Moon article into a one-liner, you would need to link to an article that contains the story information. Your example did not do that. So, it appears that you claiming that we shouldn't reduce the article to a bullet point because it is possible that someone at some time in the future just might come along to make the article notable. What I am saying is that you are proposing we do it backwards. Make it a bullet point right now. At that magical time in the future when someone has notable things to write, expand it into a notable article. -- kainaw™ 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps cast? Production info? Reviews? Background on the specufic production? Comparisons betwen the original from the 30's? Those things that make them different and unique from each other and the books that inspired them? There are a number or ways an article can be expanded from one sentence you offer. By use of your logic, everything in the article The First Men in the Moon could itself be reduced to "The First Men in the Moon is a 1901 novel by H.G Wells that depicts a jouney to the moon", making it far less than a stub, and an incredible disservice to a peprerless "encyclopedia". It is the additional informations in any article that make it suitable for Wiki and that leada to greater understanding by the reader of an article's contents. These Radio Tales broadcasts can be expanded as well. However, and to repeat, although I still take issue with a mass AfD, I am amenable to combining all into an sourced, cogent, and notable article on an award-wining anthology series if the very existance of the 63 is so distasteful to some. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't much like any of the solutions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike Pokemon, the plot of each of these episodes is already detailed in other articles right on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Moon Voyager (radio) can be reduced to:
- Keep An award-winning anthology serie is clearly notable Warrington (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An award-winning series is notable, but does that mean that every element of the series is notable? If a movie wins an Oscar, do we make an article about every crew member who worked on the movie? If a song wins a Grammy, do we make an article about the sound engineer? The whole may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every little part is notable by itself. -- kainaw™ 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Element"? We're talking about 63 unique Radio Plays that are different from each other in subject/cast/crew/production/reception... not about an "element" of a greater work... not a phaser in relation to Star Trek. Your stating it this way is akin to saying that The Sound of Music is an "element" of theater. But does this mean you might then be amenable to a single larger article that showed the notability you acknowledge? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the article on the anthology series is not under discussion. The question is not just whether these specific productions presented as part of the anthology series are notable, as well as whether the current content of their articles is worth keeping. The argument is that each of the articles contains only a) boilerplate information that applies only to the series, not to individual productions, and b) plot summary. Powers T 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the argument that they were "elements" of something else had to be addressed, and improvements to the articles themselves can be addressed within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was attempting to discount Warrington's "Keep" recommendation as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Warrington certainly didn't address "the argument that they were 'elements' of something else". Powers T 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... understood. If these then are kept with the intention to merge these 63 articles together into one larger article, I might then request assiatance from Warrington (et al) in stressing the (planned) article's notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was attempting to discount Warrington's "Keep" recommendation as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Warrington certainly didn't address "the argument that they were 'elements' of something else". Powers T 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the argument that they were "elements" of something else had to be addressed, and improvements to the articles themselves can be addressed within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki to do so. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An award-winning series is notable, but does that mean that every element of the series is notable? If a movie wins an Oscar, do we make an article about every crew member who worked on the movie? If a song wins a Grammy, do we make an article about the sound engineer? The whole may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every little part is notable by itself. -- kainaw™ 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the people arguing for "keep" are missing is that no one is proposing deleting any information. The plots are available at the parent articles, the list is available at the series article. If, at some time in the future, someone finds a source that does a comparison of the radio version of Hamlet to some other version of Hamlet, an article about that can be created at that time. Deleting the article that exists today won't interfere with that process.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. the discussion appears to favour application of WP:BLP1E. No predjudice to recreation if coverage continues to be significant in a few months' time Fritzpoll (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ty'Sheoma Bethea
- Ty'Sheoma Bethea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
People don't become notable just by sitting next to a notable person. The girl has been mentioned in some news reports but this is one-event - WP:BIO1E. —Magic.Wiki (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agreed; we can't have an article on every person invited by a President to sit in the gallery for an address to a joint session of Congress. Most of them would be perpetually stubs. Powers T 14:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A one-event person. No sensible info to merge anywhere helpful. --GedUK 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Presidency of Barack Obama I've reviewed my position, but I still don't think she's notable enough for her own article. The bulk of all of those stories are discussions about the school system or the Obama administration's position on education. I think that a redirect to would be fine (that article is 'missing' a section on education, so perhaps the sources used here would be a good place to start?) --GedUK 08:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll defer to the more experienced Wikipedians here, but I will point out that (1) I didn't create an article on "every person invited by a President to sit in the gallery for an address to a joint session of Congress", (2) there's plenty more information that's publicly available that I didn't take the time to merge in, and (3) I strongly suspect that this will not be the last we hear about this supposedly "one-event person". The notable part of this is not where she sat, but what she did to get there. Sendhil (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, speaking only for myself, I didn't choose delete on the basis of who she sat next to, nor because I thought you created the article for that reason. At this point, she is only notable for one event, and that isn't enough to meet WP guidelines. I agree that she may well become more notable in the future, but we can't confer notability in advance of it happening, wikipedia isn'ta crystal ball. --GedUK 08:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "What she did to get there" was write a letter, according to the article. That's not notable at all. Powers T 13:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is once the President makes it one of the major themes in his State of the Union address. Kuro ♪ 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lots of people write letters to governments/presidents, a few get answered. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they become encyclopedic. It might be worth mentioning in an article about the school, provided we can find some other basic information about the place. - Mgm|(talk) 09:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree that information can be merged to an article on the school (apparently, Ben Bernanke attended that school as well). However, this one event does not make the person notable. LK (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. Adam Zel (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - The initial stub article doesn't create a fair impression of the subect's notability. In the past three day, Ty'Sheoma has become the subject of feature articles and columns in many of the world's major media outlets, including the Washington Post, The Independent, NPR, and The New York Times. I have added a sampling of these in a references section. This is not just another person invited into the gallery for a Presidential speech. Ty'Sheoma's words and actions have become a symbol for the dire need to improve America's crumbling eductational infrastructure. Please give this article a chance to be developed beyond its current stub. Having feature articles written about her in major media outlets surely overcomes the notability challenge and this article should be given a chance for development. Cbl62 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See, for example, the following: Yes, Ty'Sheoma, there is a Santa Claus, Washinton Times, Criticizing Ty'Sheoma Bethea, Salon.com, Ty'Sheoma Bethea: Obama Inspired By Letter, Invites Young Student To Speech, The Huffington Post, Ty'Sheoma and the 'corridor of shame', The Independent, Why Doesn't Ty'Sheoma Have a Choice?, Washington Post, Don't let Ty'Sheoma be an excuse, The Sun News, Ty’Sheoma Bethea gets it: 'We are not quitters', Kansas City Star, First Lady’s Guests Reflect Speech Themes, The New York Times, and There's no quit in Dillon teen nor her teachers with York ties, The Herald Cbl62 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The former "stub" has now been re-written using several of the feature articles on Bethea. Additionally, People magazine is publishing a feature article on Bethea in tomorrow's edition. I would ask those who have voted to delete when the article was a really poor quality stub to take a fresh look. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bethea's letter was one of the major themes of the President's address, and has been mentioned by several of the largest media institutions internationally. She has not only been mentioned in articles covering the President's address, but has also had articles written about her. For crying out loud, if the 'octomom' Nadya Suleman or Joe the Plumber passes the one event test, then Bethea's article should be well established for notability. Kuro ♪ 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looking at the first comment by User:LtPowers on this discussion that reads: "we can't have an article on every person invited by a President to sit in the gallery for an address to a joint session of Congress." I must respond that each article must be discussed on its own merits, and not discussed as an intangible grouping. On its own merits this article is a keep - just look at the news references. Unionsoap (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 22:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Best selling albums in 2009
- Best selling albums in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fruit of a poisonous tree. This is based on the United World Chart, which is listed at WP:BADCHARTS and was deleted per WP:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. An article listing the winners of a hobby chart is completely unnecessary. —Kww(talk) 11:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- THE TOP-SELLING ALBUMS ACCORDING TO GLOBAL SALES DATA AND NATIONAL ALBUM-CHARTS
OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHARTS FROM USA, JAPAN, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, AND FRANCE WITH REAL SALES DATA OFFICIAL NATIONAL CHARTS FROM CANADA, AUSTRALIA, ITALY, SPAIN, BRAZIL, MEXICO, NETHERLANDS, SWITZERLAND, BELGIUM, SOUTH AFRICA, SWEDEN, AUSTRIA, NORWAY, DENMARK, FINLAND, IRELAND, ARGENTINA, CHILE, COLOMBIA, VENEZUELA, NEW ZEALAND, MALAYSIA, POLAND, PORTUGAL, HUNGARY, CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA, GREECE, AND SOUTH KOREA ARE WEIGHTED TO THE SIZE OF ITS MARKETS ACCORDING TO THE LATEST IFPI-STATISTICS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 12:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above text is a quote from http://www.mediatraffic.de/about-us.htm. Note that the page is clearly labeled United World Chart. Also note that it is false: there are no official national charts for Brazil, and I haven't found one for Malaysia, either (although I haven't spent months searching for one, which I have done for Brazil).—Kww(talk) 12:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Kww and WP:BADCHARTS - eo (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I hear United World Chart? Yes? Then I say Delete. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Is there some other official chart that could be used to generate this list? Powers T 14:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not based on a reliable source effectively makes this unreliable and should be deleted. --GedUK 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are, presumably, sources that could be used to provide lists like this for most major countries; why not, therefore, split the article up into a section for each country sources are available for? JulesH (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You mean like Lists of best-selling albums by country?—Kww(talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: ok. if mediatraffic is hobby chart, where can we find alternative chart of world?! i think gays from mediatraffic doin' ALBUM chart clearly and honestly, becouse the weekly data is closly to billboard and uk charts. I agree that track chart, whot they mady weekly is too diference and not very realyable but album chart is realy. so dont worry abaut this page and make most notable and clear your own pages like 2009 in music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokuna (talk • contribs) 18:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom and WP:BADCHARTS. I don't see anything useful out of this article. Versus22 talk 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given origins of article. However, there is no reason why we could not have an article based on reliable charts. Lily Allen's It's Not Me, It's You and Taylor Swift's Fearless are obvious inclusions for such an article. I'm also surprised that 2009 in music doesn't have a section on this. If it did, I would suggest a redirect. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lists of best-selling albums by country. This is a likely search term. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BADCHARTS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a fundamentally unverifiable article based on an unreliable source, which will have constant outdated-information problems anyway. I would agree that following deletion a redirect to 2009 in music would be reasonable as this is a likely search term. ~ mazca t|c 18:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Best selling music in 2009 deals with an article that is essentially a duplicate of this one, created by the same user. You may wish to close that AfD at the same time. ~ mazca t|c 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politics in metal music
- Politics in metal music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This might be a featured article on the Hebrew wikipedia but I guess their standards are different to ours. This is nothing more than original research, something more appropriate for further expansion and treatment in an academic paper rather than wikipedia. Bardin (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An encyclopedia article could be written on this topic, but this ain't it. Powers T 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure original research --GedUK 15:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research. LK (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Here we have a good subject that may even be capable of a very good - perhaps even featured - article on it with careful research. I for one would be fascinated to explore the history behind metal's strong connection to politics. Bands like Accept and post-The Crimson Idol W.A.S.P. often seem to get it more right than politicians, and at least seem to have decent reasons for what you don't agree with. However, here we have an article that is indeed pure OR and has never been anything else, mentioning only a few examples and never even looking properly at the importance of these. There is nothing salvageable here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Heavy Metal Music. or black metal MBisanz talk 08:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries
- Heavy metal in Muslim majority countries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This might be a fantastic topic for someone in the academia to do research on but at present, I do not think that there are enough sources for wikipedia to have an article on this very broad subject. Note that the previous AFD was on a different titled article that no longer resembles this one. At present, this article is nothing more than a news report of an incident in Malaysia. And wikipedia is not news. Bardin (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Heavy Metal Music. The Guardian source at the very least reports quite a few examples of 'Satanic worship' associated with heavy metal in Egypt amongst others. I agree that I'm not sure whether there's enough for a whole article without resorting to synthesis, but a section within the other article should be fine. --GedUK 15:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Heavy Metal music. Create a section "Criticisms of heavy metal", which the current article does not possess.JamesBurns (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A section on "criticism" is contrary to wikipedia's policy as it creates undue weight: see WP:NPOV, Template:Criticism-section, etc. All this article does at present is provide an account of a fairly minor incident in Malaysia from several years ago, an incident without any significant ramifications for heavy metal music as whole. It is hardly worth mentioning anywhere on wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: okies, changed vote. JamesBurns (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is at least one major mainstream book on the subject, Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam, and I would assume at least a few academic articles on JSTOR or a similar database. I'm in the middle of thesis stuff, so won't be able to go dig into sources in the near future, but I think the concept of this article definitely has potential, and several notable sources do exist. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am aware of the book's existence but I do not see how that's relevant to this AFD. There are many books out there on obscure topics but that does not mean each and every one of those topics is actually notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Should we create an article for heavy metal album covers because of this book? Or an article on the best songs in heavy metal because of this book? In any case, despite its title, the Heavy Metal Islam book encompass a broad variety of musical subjects, including rap and rock artists. So at best it only partially covers the subject of this article. --Bardin (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into black metal, since that is really a stance very worth mentioning there from the Malaysians and not at all one isolated incident but a systematic and official nationwide policy. Other nations with similar policies should also be mentioned under one joint section. There is no general discussion here as the title would suggest, only black metal in Malaysia, so I would not consider Heavy Metal music to be an appropriate target, although I agree there should be a section there; in fact, I feel that this is a topic that should be notable, but is unlikely to thus far have the sources. "This might be a fantastic topic for someone in the academia to do research on" is a sentiment I must agree with. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gloria Dasher
- Gloria Dasher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Either a near unsourced article on a non-notable individual (searches bring up zero results), or a hoax. Either way does not meet biography article notability. –– Lid(Talk) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, based on the current content, not a notable person, even if she was sourced - and in this case she isn't. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I think if this was well sourced that it might be cause for notability, but I strongly suspect a hoax here, given the inability to uncover sources using her name. Powers T 14:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be unverifiable. The only references on Google are to this page and some geneology sites and school reunion sites which seem to be a different person. Surely if this person was on Fox News, there would be more obvious Google returns. --GedUK 15:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if verified, events claimed don't make the person notable. LK (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable--but I do think that if this were verifiable, it indeed might be notable.... 7triton7 (talk) 06:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mufti Zar Wali Khan
- Mufti Zar Wali Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod contested. No reliable sources indicating notability. Seems like a violation of WP:NPOV, and has been tagged for references for a year and a half. If this person was notable, it would have been established by now. In addition, the language it is written in is mostly indecipherable to me, making it very hard to evaluate if there is, indeed, something notable that just isn't referenced -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources showing notability can be found. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteNo evidence of notability. 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Comment by User:Lilac Soul: This vote placed by User:Dougweller, according to the page's history.
- Delete Concur. No evidence of notability. LK (talk) 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable in any apparent way. 7triton7 (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 08:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of heavy metal bands
- List of heavy metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant and useless. This list is divided into two parts, the first being a list of bands from the "Original movement: 1967-1979" while the second part is just a list of links to other lists for the various subgenres of heavy metal music. The first part is practically synonymous in criteria with the list of bands provided at the traditional heavy metal article with the main difference being the arbitrary and unexplained limitation of bands from just 1967-1979. This "original movement" concept is pretty much original research. I am not aware of any reliable source that pinpoints those years as part of an original movement. Wikipedia's very own article on heavy metal music, a featured article, does not even use the term at all. The second part of the list is virtually useless as it simply directs the reader to other lists elsewhere on wikipedia. Bardin (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Bardin (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a valid WP:LIST that only needs a little lovin'. There are plenty of Lists of Lists (Meta-lists?) out there. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sloane (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Decent references. Can be used to keep the main article on heavy metal from becoming an example farm since all the good examples (especially of the original movement of heavy metal bands) are listed here. Wether B (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a never ending list. It's too broad in scope. It also includes bands that are questionable whether they are "heavy metal" WP:NOTDIRECTORY WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No reason this directory needs to exist; it could be handled with a category. tedder (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Redlinks can't be contained within a category. Lugnuts (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a debate on the merits of lists vs categories. This list is not redundant because of categories but because of other lists. The list provided at traditional heavy metal covers the same ground as the first part of this article so any redlinks can also be listed there. The rest of the article is just a directory of links to other lists. --Bardin (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has citations that meet WP:RS. Opening section about original heavy metal bands is accurate but the table needs to be filled in more. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Split into a list of lists, the "Traditional movement" part should be its own separate list as one of the lists by genre. Its better than the plain list in the main article because of the notes. Brownsnout spookfish (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wether B. Everyone knows Led Zeppelin was the first heavy metal band. But more obscure bands from the beginning years of heavy metal are not notable enough for mention in the main page about heavy metal but can be documented properly on this list. The opening section is the best part of the article and needs to be fleshed out and expanded to look like the List of thrash metal bands. The list on the Traditional heavy metal page is not really needed and any entry that falls into the original movement era should be merged into the List of heavy metal bands. Fair Deal (talk) 13:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interestingly Ian Christie is used extensively as a reference for this list yet when it came to Led Zeppelin some other source was used instead. Christie doesn't regard Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. So if people here believe he is wrong on Led Zeppelin, a question mark remains over the use of his book on other bands as a reference. JamesBurns (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are enough reliable sources which consider Led Zeppelin to be heavy metal that we can discount Christie for this fact alone; it doesn't mean we have to reject Christie entirely as a reliable source. Here in fact is a source which documents a controversy about whether Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath should be considered the "founder" of heavy metal, and it seems to be something which depends highly on what side of the Pond the writer lives. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other editors besides Christie which don't list Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. In order for the this to be WP:NPOV there should be a note attached to that entry listing the alternate point of view. You can't selectively cherry-pick a source to prove one argument and then discard it when you don't agree with it on the other. If consensus is Christie is wrong on this but right on the others than his book should no longer be considered a reliable source. JamesBurns (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it gets worse... The BBC article used as a source for Led Zeppelin is in fact a Wikipedia mirror ie. it's not an independent 3rd party source. JamesBurns (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other editors besides Christie which don't list Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. In order for the this to be WP:NPOV there should be a note attached to that entry listing the alternate point of view. You can't selectively cherry-pick a source to prove one argument and then discard it when you don't agree with it on the other. If consensus is Christie is wrong on this but right on the others than his book should no longer be considered a reliable source. JamesBurns (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are enough reliable sources which consider Led Zeppelin to be heavy metal that we can discount Christie for this fact alone; it doesn't mean we have to reject Christie entirely as a reliable source. Here in fact is a source which documents a controversy about whether Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath should be considered the "founder" of heavy metal, and it seems to be something which depends highly on what side of the Pond the writer lives. DHowell (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Interestingly Ian Christie is used extensively as a reference for this list yet when it came to Led Zeppelin some other source was used instead. Christie doesn't regard Led Zeppelin as heavy metal. So if people here believe he is wrong on Led Zeppelin, a question mark remains over the use of his book on other bands as a reference. JamesBurns (talk) 00:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article/reference improvement comments above would be better suited on the article talk page and not here. This is not a debate over whether Led Zeppelin is heavy metal (they are BTW) it is an AfD. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean according to your uncited opinion they are.. We have an article here which cites its own mirror as evidence and we have an article heavy metal music which doesnt cite once anything next to Led Zeppelin on why they are heavy metal. Poor form. And this is totally in keeping with the AfD, not off topic. Poorly referenced articles that have insufficient independent 2nd & 3rd party sources (WP:RS) are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INFO are grounds for deletion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To address your earlier point (i.e. whether Christie is a reliable enough source to justify the existence of this list), we don't judge a source entirely unreliable even it gets some things "wrong". Do we reject The Chicago Tribune as a reliable source because it once reported "Dewey Defeats Truman"? And in matters which rely heavily on opinion and individual judgement, such as the exact definition of "heavy metal" and whether certain bands fall into that definition or not, we certainly don't reject reliable sources simply because they disagree with other reliable sources. We document the disagreement, and move on. And with a tiny bit of research, you can find other sources besides the BBC site or Wikipedia mirrors. Per deletion policy, we don't delete articles that can be properly sourced simply because they aren't currently. Also, does Christie specifically say that Led Zeppelin is not heavy metal, or does he simply neglect to categorize them as such? It makes a difference. DHowell (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Sheesh, if you had spelled his name right, I would have immediately found out how completely and utterly wrong you are: Ian Christe does indeed consider Led Zeppelin to be heavy metal. DHowell (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not evidence. What you listed was a blurb written by Google, not what Christe had actually written in the book. Christe states that heavy metal started with Black Sabbath, not Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you understand what a Google Book Search is? The material was written by Christe, not Google. You find the same content when you "search inside this book" at Amazon. "While Black Sabbath unleashed the substance of heavy metal, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple fleshed out the edges and gave it sex appeal." The issue for this list is not about who "started" heavy metal, but whether Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band or not. This quote clearly supports that they are. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you not understand that does not show the actual contents of the book. The blurb was written by Google, not by Christe, whom I might add has book start on Friday the 13th, February 1970, the release date of Black Sabbath. He does not regard Led Zeppelin as the originators of heavy metal, and does not discuss at any great lengths their music. There is no chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell are you talking about? Does this link show something different for you than it does for me? I see page 12 of the book, with a picture of Ritchie Blackmore on the left and starting with the words "...frenzied blues trio formed by Eric Clapton in 1966." If Google Books isn't working for you, try the Amazon link, or go to a freakin' library or bookstore! And the index gives 15 pages for "Led Zeppelin" in this book. Who cares whether there is a "chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin"? There isn't a chapter devoted to Black Sabbath, either. DHowell (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need the library or bookstore as I have a copy sitting in front of me, along with other music books behind me which question Led Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, eg. David Konow's Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal, and Garry Sharpe-Young Metal: The Definitive Guide. JamesBurns (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me that page 12 of Sound of the Beast is not what both Google and Amazon have scanned into their respective databases? Perhaps you have a different edition of the book that has different page numbers? Is there a "Led Zeppelin" entry in the index? Can you honestly not find the quote above? DHowell (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need the library or bookstore as I have a copy sitting in front of me, along with other music books behind me which question Led Zeppelin as a heavy metal band, eg. David Konow's Bang Your Head: The Rise and Fall of Heavy Metal, and Garry Sharpe-Young Metal: The Definitive Guide. JamesBurns (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell are you talking about? Does this link show something different for you than it does for me? I see page 12 of the book, with a picture of Ritchie Blackmore on the left and starting with the words "...frenzied blues trio formed by Eric Clapton in 1966." If Google Books isn't working for you, try the Amazon link, or go to a freakin' library or bookstore! And the index gives 15 pages for "Led Zeppelin" in this book. Who cares whether there is a "chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin"? There isn't a chapter devoted to Black Sabbath, either. DHowell (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you not understand that does not show the actual contents of the book. The blurb was written by Google, not by Christe, whom I might add has book start on Friday the 13th, February 1970, the release date of Black Sabbath. He does not regard Led Zeppelin as the originators of heavy metal, and does not discuss at any great lengths their music. There is no chapter devoted to Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you understand what a Google Book Search is? The material was written by Christe, not Google. You find the same content when you "search inside this book" at Amazon. "While Black Sabbath unleashed the substance of heavy metal, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple fleshed out the edges and gave it sex appeal." The issue for this list is not about who "started" heavy metal, but whether Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal band or not. This quote clearly supports that they are. DHowell (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not evidence. What you listed was a blurb written by Google, not what Christe had actually written in the book. Christe states that heavy metal started with Black Sabbath, not Led Zeppelin. JamesBurns (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean according to your uncited opinion they are.. We have an article here which cites its own mirror as evidence and we have an article heavy metal music which doesnt cite once anything next to Led Zeppelin on why they are heavy metal. Poor form. And this is totally in keeping with the AfD, not off topic. Poorly referenced articles that have insufficient independent 2nd & 3rd party sources (WP:RS) are WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INFO are grounds for deletion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article/reference improvement comments above would be better suited on the article talk page and not here. This is not a debate over whether Led Zeppelin is heavy metal (they are BTW) it is an AfD. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good list, good refs, good companion piece for the main heavy metal article. Open section detailing original heavy metal bands is a good start but needs some minor formatting tweaks and more content. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The arguments that a category is better than a list should be discounted per WP:CLN; the remaining arguments to delete are that it is redundant to other lists or consists of original research, which can be solved by editing or merging, rather than by deletion. But I don't think a merge is warranted here; this is a good combination article of a list of early influential bands in the genre and a list of sub-lists for the later and more numerous bands in various sub-genres. This is pretty much exactly the type of information I would expect to see in a "List of heavy metal bands" article. Whether it is called "original movement" or something else, the well-sourced heavy metal music article seems to support the idea of an "early movement" of heavy metal bands in the 1960s and early-to-mid 1970s, before the genre started to be influenced by punk and newer styles of rock, and before heavy metal truly entered the mainstream and started spawning off its own sub-genres; it seems that the formation of Motörhead in 1975 is a defining moment here. I think the split into separate tables for each letter of the alphabet is unnecessary; the list isn't so long that it needs to split this way, and in fact might be better sorted chronlogically rather than alphabetically. Another thing that appears to make this different than the list in traditional heavy metal is that the list in that article seems to include newer bands which play in the style of traditional heavy metal, as opposed to the first half of this list which is limited to bands which were influential in the formation of the genre. DHowell (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasons already stated on this page. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nominator. This would be better handled as a category. The use of a mirror as a reference is cause for concern. HelenWatt (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list can easily be expanded Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep list is good and can be improved simply by filling in the missing table fields for each entry. First section has good references and the other sub-genre link sections serve a purpose without duplicating content from other pages. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Powow River Poets
- Powow River Poets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete:Article Contains no non-trivial source to justify notability, all internet searches provide either press releasaes or trival coverage by blogs or local publications of readings, meetings, etc. Mrathel (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Mrathel (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mrathel (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Mrathel (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - much of the news material are event announcements, but the event announcements are rather long and are usually done like that for groups that are significant. More importantly, there are a couple of non-event announcement articles such as this substantial article from the Boston Globe and this review of their anthology. At the very least, it could be merged to Rhina Espaillat, but there are sufficient sources to support a stand-alone article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment perhaps you can clarify on those suggested links; the first one does not work for me and the second does not bring up a review. Event announcements are not non-trivial in nature unless they provide verifiable information about the subject from a valid source. I stared the AfD because even in the long event announcements I could not find any information that would make the subject notable. Mrathel (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the first link is a link to the Boston globe, a major newspaper. Unfortunately, between the time I reviewed the article, and now, it appears that they have taken it off their site. It was a fairly long article where the Powow Poets were the main subject and proving some depth of coverage. The second link is through AccessMyLibrary which requires registration. It is a short book review of an anthology of poems from the Powow Poets. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I believe the article from the Globe can be found here. And this is a reference from a non-trivial source. However, it would take more than this to meet the criteria from WP:Creative. Notability must be derrived from a conglomeration of information from non-trivial sorces such as this one, and I fear that this Globe article may be the result of the fact that it was local. Is there any way you can perhaps paste some of the information from the AccessMyLibrary review on my talk page? Mrathel (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry it seems that the article doesn't enjoy being linked to:)Mrathel (talk)
- Reply - With respect to the Globe article, the reason for it may be that the group is "local", but the as a major metropolitan daily, they won't just write up any old group. There is an editorial process that reviews and determines what makes it into the paper. That's why we use it as a reliable source to establish notability. AS such, the localness of the group isn't really relevant. As for the AccessMyLibrary link, it's a short article and access is free. You just need to register. I used my library card and accessed the text. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - the first link is a link to the Boston globe, a major newspaper. Unfortunately, between the time I reviewed the article, and now, it appears that they have taken it off their site. It was a fairly long article where the Powow Poets were the main subject and proving some depth of coverage. The second link is through AccessMyLibrary which requires registration. It is a short book review of an anthology of poems from the Powow Poets. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment edited this page to fix the Boston Globe links. Verified them to work. Wiseleo (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've found at least one substantial writeup so I don't think it is fair to say there are no sources. But it could be argued that there is insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. However, there is an alternative to deletion and that is to merge the material to the groups founder as I mentioned above. -- Whpq (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - e-mailed Newburyport Art Association (the group's meetings host) to request further samples of media coverage. Wiseleo (talk) 03:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the problem with merging with the group's creator is that the other article's only source is a publication by the powow river poets. To say that there is insufficient coverage on the topic is, as far as I can tell from having spent almost an hour searching my university library and the internet, correct. I have no problem merging this article with the Rhina Espaillat article if notability for the author can be established. If she is indeed the "most prominent translator of the poetry of Robert Frost into Spanish" as the article suggests without giving sources, that should not be hard. Mrathel (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move discussion about merge to the article's talk apge. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Received reply to my inquiry from Newburyport Art Association... It's very lengthy as below (You will note that this was provided by Rhina P. Epsaillat into whose article Mrathel is proposing to merge this group :)):Wiseleo (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Knyshov,
The notability of the Powow River Poets as a literary entity rests on two claims:
1) As a workshop composed of some twenty-four members, the Powow River Poets includes individuals whose poems have collected a wildly disproportionate number of the nation's significant poetry awards. To give just a few highlights, of the total of eleven Richard Wilbur Awards so far, five have been won by Powows (Krisak, Espaillat, Juster, Nicol, and Warren); of the nine New Criterion Awards, two have been won by Powows (Coyle and Warren); of the fifteen Howard Nemerov Prize winners, eight have been Powows (Juster three times, Espaillat twice, Warren, Crawford and Scaer once each); one has won the T. S. Eliot Prize (Espaillat). According to the judges of those competitions, as well as several seasoned critics and reviewers, the group comprises some of the best poets--particularly formal poets--writing in this country today.
2) Since 1994, the group has brought distinguished poets with national reputations to read for local audiences, through the Powow River Poets Reading Series, which has hosted scores of the nation's best-known poets, including Dana Gioia, X. J. Kennedy, A. E. Stallings, Tim Murphy, Richard Moore, Gail White, Robert Shaw, Lewis Turco, Diana Der-Hovanessian, David Mason, Leslie Monsour, Erika Funkhouser, and two former Laureates, Richard Wilbur and William Jay Smith.
Several are also noted translators: Krisak and Juster have published book-length translations of Horace, Ovid and Petrarch; various members have published translations from French, German, Spanish, Tagalog, Portuguese and Swedish; one is translating the best-known poems by Robert Frost into Spanish. The group is well known, and highly regarded, by poets throughout the country, who perceive them as something of a poetic phenomenon. X. J. Kennedy's introduction to the group's anthology conveys that, as did the panel devoted to the achievements of the group, presented at the West Chester University Poetry Conference on June 9, 2006. Members of the group have participated in every one of the West Chester University Poetry Conferences for years, as conferees, panelists, speakers and faculty. Powows have also participated in the yearly Newburyport Literary Festival held in April, and in last year's first Massachusetts Poetry Festival, held in Lowell in October, on televised literary interviews and other events at various literary gatherings in many states.
Possibly the best way to gauge the notability of the organization is to learn about some of its current active members, listed below:
David Berman
Bill Coyle
Robert Crawford
Rhina P. Espaillat
A. M. Juster
Len Krisak
Alfred Nicol
Stephen Scaer
Deborah Warren
I hope that what I've told you is helpful. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely, Rhina P. Espaillat
- Comment - One course of action could be to perhaps persuade Rhina to publish this information on the group's site so we can cite it accordingly? Wiseleo (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens under WP:CSD#G3. Non-admin close. BryanG (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thailand Express
- Thailand Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a band which does seem to assert notability through being associated with a major label, but whose claims could not be at all verified by extensive Google searches for the band's name along with claimed labels, members or releases. In short: Not notable; might as well be a hoax, even. Paul_012 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - This is a hoax; this would return something substantive. Elaborate hoaxes should be considered vandalism, so I'll tag it as such. They're a waste of everyone's time. §FreeRangeFrog 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to pregnancy test. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pregnancy detection
- Pregnancy detection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Superfluous article, could be merged into Pregnancy and Pregnancy test. . . Rcawsey (talk) 08:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to pregnancy test which appears to be the most likely target for someone who wants to detect a pregnancy - Mgm|(talk) 10:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as plausible name to Pregnancy test which is superior in terms of sources and editing.--Lenticel (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Mgm. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per the above, with any merging of text that might be necessary. Anaxial (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David Parker controversy
- David Parker controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is just the report of some very minor incidents. Their importance is not explained, nor even why they are a "controversy." Northwestgnome (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Parents have issues with school districts and teachers all the time, and this is no different. Very few sources and few changes ensued in the interim of this. Nate • (chatter) 09:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem notable enough for a page. Alberon (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Powers T 14:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - interesting story, but of purely local interest and thus outside our remit. - Biruitorul Talk 15:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It has some citations, which is good, but WP:NOTNEWS would suggest deletion without evidence of some wider or longer-term impact. Bondegezou (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tadlock's Glasses
- Tadlock's Glasses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreleased album, I don't think this warrants inclusion as per WP:CRYSTAL Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I did some searching, it's there in Spin Magazine and there are mentions on the BB forum, however they have not been made by the band, so they don't necessarily count. It's the working title of an album that the band says they are working on. Without speculation, one can suppose, with a fair amount of confidence, that the Bestie Boys will release another album, probably under this title, so it's not that far fetched - so I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here. --Ouro (blah blah) 10:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above, and the article passes WP:CRYSTAL. Yellowweasel (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article source is cited and a member of the band says that collectively they are calling the album this. Going into the final stages of the album's production, I find it difficult to believe the band would mention the name of the album, which references a friend, if that wasn't going to remain the title. No other titles are even alluded to being in contention. I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Galapogosian (talk) 10:32 a.m., 25 February 2009 (EST)
- Keep - I originally PRODed this because it contained very little information and didn't even squeak by WP:CRYSTAL, but it has definitely been expanded enough that I think should be kept. §FreeRangeFrog 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:CRYSTAL. Aw, Jenuk you're just jealeaus, it's the BEAS-TIE-BOYS! --Sloane (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The Beastie Boys! Certainly notable and verifiable. EagleFan (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The album is going to be released later this year and the information in the article is verifiable, so no need to delete it to have it recreated in a few months. And the Beastie Boys are notable enough, no question about that. Laurent (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep and tag for further sourcing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:CRYSTAL, verifiable. Radiopathy (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep Ikip (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Draft round values
- Draft round values (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a game, can't quite work out what it is though! Doesn't seem notable or encyclopaedic. Jenuk1985 | Talk 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa. A lot of work went into this, but I'll be doggoned if I can figure out what it is. There's a copyright in the edit history, so it may well be a copyvio. Of something. Not sure what. Delete as non-encyclopedic, but if it's not a copyvio, it may be a candidate for a transwiki to Wikisource. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say its almost definitely a copy and paste from somewhere, judging from the spacing that was in the article (which the author is now trying to sort out). I can't find out if its a copyvio though, Google is no help here Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have nommed for speedy as {{db-nocontext}}; also the copyvio issues. //roux 08:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)removed speedy due to comments on the article talkpage, now !voting for deletion//roux 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say its almost definitely a copy and paste from somewhere, judging from the spacing that was in the article (which the author is now trying to sort out). I can't find out if its a copyvio though, Google is no help here Jenuk1985 | Talk 08:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NFT. //roux 09:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mr. Haworth, If you are the one who ultimately decides the fate of this article, I ask that you hold off it's deletion until it would be the article that puts you over the hump and into the top 10 for most articles deleted by admins., I see you are at #11 right now and I am willing to concede my argument if it's for a noble cause. It would be a shame if all of my hard work died in vein, so I ask for you to give it an honorable death and make it seem as if my time wasn't spent for nothing. I've done all that I could to salvage this piece of work, but I'm afraid all the biting has gotten to me and has rendered me apathetic. I don't know, maybe if it's still alive in a week I'll try to improve my referencing, but then again who knows, I may be busy authoring the Theory of Relativity.Elektro28 (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The copyright symbol was done originally as a joke, I forgot to remove it before I transfered this from a word document. This is essentially Pythagorean expectation, a form of Sabermetrics applied to Fantasy Sports. I will be citing these and others as soon and as much as I can as I finalize my contribution and you're right, alot of work did go into this. Elektro28 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but it doesn't matter how much work went into it. What matters is that the work is original research, which isn't allowed. //roux 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "How much work went into it" was not intended to be taken as an argument for the articles sake, it simply was a response to a statement above. With that being said, I'm still unclear on why in the world you think this is "original research", it clearly is a detailed example of a system that was put in place by the famous author and Baseball analyst Bill James. Sabermetrics has been around since the 70's and you really don't know how big of a compliment you are giving me if you think I invented it one day in my basement. I just merely took the existing concept, plugged in values to the equation, and filled in the corresponding values to the table provided. Basically, I have just simplified that which had already existed by plugging in numbers and organizing the end results.
- Yes but it doesn't matter how much work went into it. What matters is that the work is original research, which isn't allowed. //roux 17:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from Wikipedia:No original research
Under the subcategory "Synthesis of published material which advances a position"
"The "No original research" rule does not forbid routine calculations (e.g. adding or subtracting numbers, rounding them, calculating percentages, converting them into similar units, putting them on a graph, or calculating a person's age), or restatements, summaries, or rewordings, provided they are uncontroversial and add no new information to what is already present in the cited sources."
Thank you, Elektro28 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But you just admitted created the concept yourself, WP:NEO applies than, and notabilty guidelines, also that part of a guideline is meant for general lists, not this. Delete Secret account 15:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vote struck by //roux 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC); you only get one vote in an AFD The equations already existed, the "concept" I developed was to simplify their function by plugging values in and providing easy to read tables. I ask that all comments going forward on this article be withheld unless you could be considered at least moderately knowledgeable on the topic of Sabermetrics. I fear that not many people are familiar with this form of mathematics and are quick to pull the trigger on it before fully understanding it's purpose. Sabermetric equations have been around since 1976. I am 26. Do the math. Elektro28 (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously guys, is this whole "delete" thing like a game to some of you or something. I mean I have literally gone to some of your user pages and found "stats" for how many articles you've assisted in deleting. 7 minutes! That's how long after I created the page that it was nominated for deletion, I had barely even begun formatting the tables and hadn't even finished the introduction, 7 minutes! This really isn't fair to me or any other user trying to make a notable contribution and eventually I hope you can come to understand this. Elektro28 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can understand what it's about, even though I do wonder if anyone watches baseball or American football without a stopwatch and a scientific calculator. This is as valid to me as any of the sport statistical articles. (Bin the lot...) Are fantasy sports notable? I suppose if a lot of people are involved they must be. Are all these sports statistics necessary? Judging by the number of questions on them at one of my other internet homes, they must be - to some people at least. (Yawn....) I said I could understand what it was about. True. I can't understand it, though. Just as I can't see the point of American football (or Bach cantatas...). Peridon (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Characters in the Inheritance cycle. MBisanz talk 05:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Garrow (Inheritance Cycle)
- Garrow (Inheritance Cycle) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is about a relatively minor character in the Inheritance Cycle. All necessary information about the character for an encyclopedia entry is given at Characters in the Inheritance cycle, making this article redundant. Una LagunaTalk 06:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the character list page. There's some information in here that seems to be relevant, and the short paragraph in the character list could bear a little expansion. JulesH (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per JulesH. Edward321 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Nuwaubianism. MBisanz talk 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barathary gland
- Barathary gland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article provides no references at all apart from several obscure self published books and two links to a discussion group. Policy is clear on this "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". WP:BURDEN Deconstructhis (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This page was created because the Nuwaubianism page was getting very large. It deals with a specific and easily-encapsulated aspect of the Nuwaubian belief system. Because of this, I recommend keep but certainly a merge would be better than a delete. The references are to self-published books because this belief system is best-represented by the self-published books of the cult that has developed the belief system in question. Just as you would use Tolkien's works as the best source of information on Tolkien balrogs, you would refer to York's books as the best source of information on York's "barathary gland" concept. -Moorlock (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but balrogs also have been covered extensively by other writers. If this barathary gland has not, then is it really notable enough to support an entire article? Powers T 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we accept that York is an authoritative source on Nuwaubianism, according to my interpretation of policy, it still doesn't follow that York can be the *only* source in support of the material in this article, which is currently the case. Tolkien articles contain sources other than Tolkien. In my opinion, considering this article is currently exclusively sourced from primary material, neutrality comes into play here as well as notability. Deconstructhis (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but balrogs also have been covered extensively by other writers. If this barathary gland has not, then is it really notable enough to support an entire article? Powers T 15:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be a worthwhile breakout page from the Nuwaubianism article, given that article's size, even if this is sourced only to primary sources. Those sources are at least authoritative in the context of Nuwaubianism, and are therefore reliable. It is a fringe theory, but let's face it: if you can't tell that this is a fringe theory, you're too little to be messing with Daddy's computer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it a notable fringe theory? Powers T 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe theory contains something which I consider relevant under the circumstances: "Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it." Deconstructhis (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it a notable fringe theory? Powers T 15:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuwaubianism is: this article is a permitted content fork made because of the size of the head article. I don't think that separate notability is required for this spin-out; but if others think so, then re-merging this back into the head article would be preferable to deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although "forking" is occasionally permitted when dealing with articles of sufficient length, it does not appear to me that the practise then in turn permits an exception to the requirement in policy that the "spin off" article(s) need to provide more than a single primary source for the material being added. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense that isn't properly sourced.--Sloane (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or if needed, merge) into Nuwaubian. This particular part of the mythology is not known or relevant outside the cult. A good example of the sort of fringe article that is not appropriate. DGG (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge References can be found for this but the topic may be best covered in the relevant section of the Nuwaubianism article. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, fringe junk. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Sources are light (at best) and I think merge would be a good editorial call. But otherwise seems to be a reasonable spinout article on the topic of this Fringe cult. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added something to the talk page of the Nuwaubianism article a few moments ago that I think might be relevant to this discussion.[34] Deconstructhis (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clique Girlz - EP
- Clique Girlz - EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for albums. The article only has a track listing and lists who the album is by. Also doesn't contain any reliable 3rd party sources. FrehleySpace Ace 06:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Clique Girlz. Their debut album may be notable, but apparently not this EP. Powers T 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already speedy deleted as A3. Bduke (Discussion) 10:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket Boards
- Cricket Boards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM - the creating editor even admits the page is a linkfarm on the talk page. ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as linkfarm. An alternative might be a redirect to the International Cricket Council as the international governing body of cricket. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Sleepover Soundtrack
- The Sleepover Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable per WP:BAND. JaGatalk 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No label, no albums, no evidence of notability. Powers T 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: MySpace band. No independent 3rd party sources WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splint (band)
- Splint (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't prove notability per WP:BAND. Note that the part about ATV Offroad Fury refers to the band Strawhorse, not Splint. JaGatalk 05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. None of the wp:band 12 criteria fulfilled here. An article on Strawhorse would perhaps have more of a chance, seemingly not much more though. tomasz. 12:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party sources. Google turning up mostly MySpace and blogs WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mama Black Widow
- Mama Black Widow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
According to imdb, the movie was supposed to be released in 2008. But nothing was confirmed yet. I couldn't find any recent information on Google News: [35]. Complete WP:CRYSTAL. Descíclope (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Descíclope (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice and WP:USERFY back to author. A cursory search found much buzz last May due only to rumours about Rihanna being cast: "Rihanna Starts Acting Career, to Star in Movie 'Mama Black Widow'" (May 16, 2008), "Rihanna “Mama Black Widow” Movie Role" (May 19, 2008), "Mos Def & Rihanna To Star In Mama Black Widow Movie" (May 21, 2008), "MAMA BLACK WIDOW casting news" (May 22, 2008), "Rihanna’s Film Debut in Mama Black Widow" (May 23, 2008)... and a resurgence of this rumour last October: "Mos Def, Rihanna Star In 'Mama Black Widow', Ice-T Working On "Pimp" Doc" (October 22, 2008)... only to have the rumour prove false last January: "Rihanna Addresses Iceberg Slim Movie Role, Singer Says She's No 'Black Widow'" (January 1, 2009). I could find nothing that indicates filming has begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: un-released film, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
India: Elections and History of Violence
- India: Elections and History of Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
OR and personal analysis article without any tangible references -- Tinu Cherian - 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC) -- Tinu Cherian - 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 04:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the reasons listed above. Deavenger (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Should be kept and revamped according to NPOV.
- Delete OR essay, rather than a wiki-article. The topic of violence during elections can be covered under Elections in India, but there seem to be little, if anything, to retrieve here. Abecedare (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perdita, the Gypsy Circus Girl
- Perdita, the Gypsy Circus Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as utterly unverifiable and likely hoax. (@ nom: notability only applies to real topics for which claims can be verified but aren't enough for inclusion). - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. From the article: "This is an important project with serious implications for the future profitability of the author. The deletion of this page will inevitably detract from the publicity surrounding the release of the film, currently predicted to take place in autumn 2010." Either a hoax, or shameless self-promotion. Or both. Powers T 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable at best, probably a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per all the above. Perdita + "Sian Tomlin" - wikipedia returns a fat zero ghits. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arnie vickers
- Arnie vickers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Borderline case, potentially fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google uncovers 3 hits of which the top 1 is a Facebook site. [36] Google News Archive comes up with nothing at all. There is no evidence of any notability at all let alone that the subject warrants a Wikipedia article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources listed, or can be found. --GRuban (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abconline-cms
- Abconline-cms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to fail WP:N, WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete product is not notable and lacks reliable third party sources. 16x9 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably could have been speedied as a company -- samj inout 02:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedy. No GNews hits, and the regular ghits mostly just say that it's being used.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Wm. Gunn
- Gregory Wm. Gunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently non-notable author. Only claim of notability is his authorship of three books, one published by vanity press AuthorHouse and the other two by presses I can't even find websites for. Only 162 Google hits combined for various versions of his name, most of which aren't relevant. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is a notable Canadian poet. Esasus (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources in the article, not by simply saying "he's notable". I suspect you're right, because even I've heard of him, but the article doesn't have any sources (or even actually contain any statements) which demonstrate that he's sufficiently notable to be here. Keep if sources can be added; delete if they can't. Bearcat (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I will ask him for updates for references as he is a know London Poet WayneRay (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- One day, I'm hoping, the quality of a writer's work will be the criteria for inclusion. After all, what's between the covers should count at least as much, if not more, than the imprint on the spine. If the main issue is a release with Author House, keep in mind that the waiting period/turnaround time for a mss. is three to four years from submission to published book. Mr. Gunn is one of the first in the present wave of New Formalist poets. I think his inclusion is an important part of the story of this genre. Greenwichbeat (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lanetta Wahlgren
- Lanetta Wahlgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article has no sources; subject of article has no IMDB credits (screenwriting or otherwise). Notability is not inherited. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable unless we can find reliable source coverage demonstrating active authorial collaboration with Michael Blodgett or Mario Puzo (not finding any RS). Baileypalblue (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Assertions of notability in the article are too vague (and unsubstantiated) to say she passes notability criteria. Mbinebri talk ← 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. decltype 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Harald K. Haugan
- Harald K. Haugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable author. His only claim of notability is his four listed books, all of which were published by vanity press AuthorHouse. Google returns only 59 hits for his name. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost no assertion of notability in the article. I'd say it's just a hair's width away from being an A7. --L. Pistachio (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, from what I can see, also fails WP:CREATIVE. decltype 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Pawn Prince
- The Pawn Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable book published by vanity press AuthorHouse. No claim of notability is made and book turns up only 19 Google hits. -Elmer Clark (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable independent sources to be found. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Central Connecticut State University Computer Lab
- Central Connecticut State University Computer Lab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like a campus directory entry. Not encyclopedic. L. Pistachio (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, not a common search term [37] so it's not necessary as a redirect. Baileypalblue (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy? On this edit [38] the author and sole contributor blanked the page. Shouldn't this just be handled as a CSD G7?--Cube lurker (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 02:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R. S. Pierpoint
- R. S. Pierpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable author whose only notability claim is his supposedly "eerily prophetic" book After the Mardi Gras (also nominated), which was published by vanity press AuthorHouse. Only 61 Google hits for this guy.
Also nominated:
-Elmer Clark (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indictation of any notability whatsoever for either entry. Alberon (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of notability, mostly OR bio. No notability for book either. §hepTalk 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Venaculas
- Venaculas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. JaGatalk 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be more specific and explain why you think this band doesn't meet the notability criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raging Dragons
- Raging Dragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't know a lot about dragon boat racing, but this boat claims to have raced at a national level and to have done well. We should consider such an indication of notability enough to survive the A7 speedy it was tagged for. However, I wonder if we should consider it enough to support an article longer-term? Splash - tk 22:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - this is a difficult one. Dragon Boat racing an obviously minority sport in UK, this team may be good but does that give them notability? Article has been toned down, was very promotional. Perhaps should be given time to develop? Parslad (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon boat racing is a minority sport in the UK at the moment, but the IDBF only needs 14 more member states before it has the 75 members it needs for the IOC to recognise it as an Olympic sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.130.105 (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. There is some coverage but it seems to be local only. [39]. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think dragon boat racing itself is notable; this team seems to fail WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted.--Sloane (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raging Dragons have had International TV news coverage via: 1. Phoenix Television for their 2003 Chinatown Lions victory [40] 2. Phoenix Television for their 2003 Dorney Lake victory [41] 3. Chinese Channel for their 2007 Chinatown Lions victory [42]
Dragon boat racing is a serious International sport: 1. Sebastian Coe is the patron of the British Dragon Boat Racing Association. [43] 2. The World Dragon Boat Racing Championships is currently in it's 9th year, as is the European Championships as they take place in alternate years. [44] 3. Currently, 61 countries are members of the International Dragon Boat Federation. [45]
Also, the fact that the GB Dragon Boat Racing Team has has performed so well on the international stage recently, at the European and World Championships, is surely evidence of notability. [46] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheddy (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for expansion and sourcing. Sources provided by Pheddy show WP:GNG has been met. Article simply needs improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7 non-notable band. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ginger Snaps (band)
- Ginger Snaps (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This band does not meet WP:BAND. They do not have significant coverage by third party sources, and there is no assertion as to why the article is notable or deserves to be in Wikipedia. To avoid confusion, the singles listed at the bottom of the article are not this band's, they are actually singles by another group, but for some reason are listed on this page. FingersOnRoids 03:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit - Unrelated singles were deleted. FingersOnRoids 03:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No mention of notability LetsdrinkTea 03:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market
- Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable new concept. One article in The Scientist is not sufficient to establish notability. Edcolins (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails notability of range of sources available.MarquisCostello (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep In view of the work done on the article, i am changing to 'keep'.MarquisCostello (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The two added sources appear to relate to "prediction market" only, not to "Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market", although a quote from the articles is required to verify this. In addition, the link and comparison between "prediction market" and "Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market" appears to be original research. Still not sufficient to establish notability, I am afraid. --Edcolins (talk) 05:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found and checked the first source (Economics. The promise of prediction markets.). It does not mention intellectual property. This confirms what I wrote above, i.e. the source does not support notability of the subject. --Edcolins (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In view of the work done on the article, i am changing to 'keep'.MarquisCostello (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Article Author. The first proposed deletion seems entirely premature as the article has not had sufficient time to attract a sufficient number of wiki readers to warrant a broad consensus. The second proposed deletion caused me to research related ideas and helped make the contrast more valid. Additional references have been added. Thank you! Graceinnes (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No signs that this proposed idea is notable. As for the 3 sources, 1 is a dead link and another is about a completely different concept. 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Fat Joe. MBisanz talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jealous Ones Still Envy 2 (J.O.S.E. 2)
- Jealous Ones Still Envy 2 (J.O.S.E. 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails notability guideline for music because it merely repeats promotion from the rapper's own website. There are no secondary sources available at this time. Thus, this might be mere speculation, since there are no sources that directly confirm the claims made in this article. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you see the youtube video where Fat Joe himself talks about the album? Also, take a look at this link:
https://www.shopemi.com/album_page.asp?artist_id=4472 (The Canadian company that distributes Fat Joe's music in Canada) I would like to know why he would have a video shoot for a song if he doesn't have an album coming out. If you even listen to music, you'd know that they always have a video shoot for a song if it will be on an album. And if the album name is wrong (ALTHOUGH Fat Joe said it himself), that's an easy change. So Keep the page. Y5nthon5a (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So far Fat Joe's own announcements have been the only sources. Wikipedia's notability guideline recommends that future albums can have articles only when there are multiple reliable sources that verify the release. Or maybe I'm mistaken? Are the artist's own announcements on his own webpages enough? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think it is enough. MySpaces aren't only ran by the artists, they are ran by the labels as well. Also, I showed you the Canadian company that distribute's his music in Canada, which is another source. And hip hop artists usually announce their future albums, not the labels. If you gave me a couple weeks, I could even find more references.Y5nthon5a (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and userfy if Y5nthon5a is interested in having it. We need reliable sources independent of the subject to show notability; the problem here his that the sources are either unreliable or not independent, and this is exactly the type of scenario that WP:CRYSTAL was intended to address. When sources appear, the article can be undeleted/moved from user space. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:CRYSTAL notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: You want references?
http://www.examiner.com/p-306557~Fat_Joe_Readies_New_Album__Jealous_Ones_Still_Envy_2_Out_April_7.html http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhf0ss6MHq8505JTtD
As I said, wait for more references to come. Y5nthon5a (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main Fat Joe article until more sources/tracks/etc. come out. For now that's the most practical option given that it's at least somehow verifiable. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phylum Monsters
- Phylum Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (books) criteria. No non-trivial coverage in publications, no awards, not a basis for a film or similar impact, not a subject of study, author's notability not enough for this work. Contents could easily be merged with the novel's author article. Mild COI since book author started article. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two line article with no mention of notability LetsdrinkTea 03:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep According to ISFDB this book received reviews in two notable publications. Since the author is actually around we can ask them to update the article and give it some meat before passing judgement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I may even have the Analog issue listed. I don't recall the specific review but aren't they generally along the lines of "Here's Author's Latest. Its about this and that. It's a sequel/prequel/entirely independant of his well-known Other Thing. It's great/he can do better/ it's terrible. I liked it/ didn't like it, buy it/don't buy it." An Analog review would generally not provide enough criticism to allow an article to grow past a plot summary or dust-jacket copy. If this is the standard, then I can't imagine a book that doesn't get at least a paragraph review somewhere; newspapers have to fill the Sunday books column somehow. The author of the book in question is not an independant source for that book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's had a Locus review (Sep 1989, Carolyn Cushman) as well, for whatever it's worth. Knowing that is not so much use without the actual text of course. Artw (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found the "Analog" review (Mid-December 1989, Vol CIX No. 13, pages 278-279). It's about 1 1/2 columns in the digest-sized "Analog" of the time (61 lines). Tom Easton spends most of the space (39 lines) giving a plot summary. Easton gives about 3 or 4 sentences to say the book isn't bad, he enjoyed it, but he thought the author "played it too much for yucks" instead of effectively and seriously making a point. Easton never gives any indication that this is a significant or notable work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's had a Locus review (Sep 1989, Carolyn Cushman) as well, for whatever it's worth. Knowing that is not so much use without the actual text of course. Artw (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I may even have the Analog issue listed. I don't recall the specific review but aren't they generally along the lines of "Here's Author's Latest. Its about this and that. It's a sequel/prequel/entirely independant of his well-known Other Thing. It's great/he can do better/ it's terrible. I liked it/ didn't like it, buy it/don't buy it." An Analog review would generally not provide enough criticism to allow an article to grow past a plot summary or dust-jacket copy. If this is the standard, then I can't imagine a book that doesn't get at least a paragraph review somewhere; newspapers have to fill the Sunday books column somehow. The author of the book in question is not an independant source for that book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established.--Sloane (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand article to reflect its notability. Buried, Fantatic Fiction, Fiction db, Google books, Locus Magazine. COI can be easily addressed with other editors now taking an interest. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dust jacket copy. Bookstore. Bookstore (not even any reader comments!). Bookstore. 1-Line listing of title in index of books by author. None of these are critical reviews, or show notability other than filling a spot on the publisher's catalog that year. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BK. And if we're to take seriously the description, in WP:5P, that our little Web site is intended to incorporate "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers," a work that even specialized encyclopedias, such as those cited in two of the article's refs, see fit to deny a separate article, mentioning it only in one sentence each, hardly deserves a stand-alone article here. Deor (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Someones added refs by Brian Stableford. Nice. It would be good to see refs by a second author, and a bit more actual content though. Artw (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Can be expanded — Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But *how* can it be expanded? Even the core publication of the genre have nothing to say about it. Expansion is not the issue. It's not nominated because the article is a stub, it's nominated because the novel isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:Notability (books) (and I accept good faith that the nom onerlooked this) "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." Author Hayford Peirce and his works are a part of curriculum taught in multiple colleges and universities, and that qualifies this book and article as notable per guideline. Though the stub might be expanded, per WP:STUB it need not be merged into some other article, as stubs are not disallowed under policy and guideline and is quite suitable just as it is. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
African United Baptist Church
- African United Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete this has been here for 5 years but remains little more than a dense essay, with little real-world context and devoid of references showing notability. This doesn't seem to be the mainstream Baptist group in southern Africa, but a splinter one that may not be numerous or otherwise notable. It has had periodic tweaks over the years so we can learn: "No other Black denomination has built more edifice in Southern Africa than NBC USA INC albeit that many have remained empty and delapedated due to bad blood. The contrast of this sad scenario is against the backdrop of Africans still worshiping under trees as their edifice. With all educational exposure ever provided towards educating the clergy no foundation of a formalised christian education programm exists. Apartheid is long gone and forgotten and Obama is president who do those concerned with missions work have to point a finger. Where is a Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of our fathers and mothers ruined fallen walls." which seems more an unsourced slam at the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., and some aspiration that Nehemiah will return - an insight into their theology perhaps but not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search on both the church and the names cited in the article, including S.J Mahlangu and Moses Mocha, are turning up no evidence that this church exists.Redirect Based on the edits and input from GRBerry, I would recommend redirecting the article to African Baptist Assembly of Malawi, Inc. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Not notable; the article is filled with random trivial facts LetsdrinkTea 03:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless we get some sources indicating the importance of this church grouping. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but revert to last 2008 edit. The page was a reasonable looking stub until 5 January 2009.[47] That edit is a problem. I can find via Google Books a 1965 source that verifies the stub, so I've added it and basically reverted to that stub with a couple minor copyedits. (Note that in searching Google, the "African United Baptist Association" of Nova Scotia, Canada is significantly more prominent online, and should probably be filtered out to preserve your sanity.) I'd like to find more data on it, but given our systemic bias against African content I'm happy with keeping the stub. I don't know if the denomination is still around under the original name, renamed itself, or merged into another denomination. GRBerry 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The long parargraph added prior to 18 February and now removed is unreferenced and poorly written, but contains a lot of detail, which is unlikely to have been invented: information with that amount of detail normally does have a reliable source, or at least a credible source. The article seems now to have been reverted to a short stub, as existing in late 2008. This has removed a lot of textb that some one had put in. Pastor Theo's comment that googling produces nothing is not helpful. Malawi is not a country renowned for being heavily connected to the Internet; hence, this proves nothing. Patrick Johnson and Jason Mandryk, Operation World (6th edition, Paternoster Publishing, Carlisle 2001), 419 ideneties the existence of 330 denominations in Malawi, including African Baptist Assembly, Baptist Convention and Evangelical Baptist. Each of these three is a denomination of several hundred churches. Unless some one can find evidnce that this article is a WP:HOAX, it should certainly remain in some form. For preference, I would like to see the deleted material moved to the Talk Page, pending verification. I suspect that Wikipedians who are experts on Christianity in Malawi are few. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in the prior comment, I returned to the stub because I found sourcing to largely support it. I wouldn't object to you putting a link to the 2009 content on the article talk page... but my take on it is that it is unreliable garbage. For example, I really doubt that the edit of 28 January saying that "Somali pirates" (used in quotes by adder) tried to take over a church building is based on anything reliable[48] (Malawi is a land-locked country), and it is largely indistinguishable from the rest of the content added in 2009. Parts of the 2009 content (e.g. timing of founding) contradict the reliable source I found. If it is not vandalism then WP:BLP also comes into play. GRBerry 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Peterkingiron: there is abundant Malawi-related news on the Internet, both from the nation's media and the pan-African media: [49]. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peterkingiron. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eftychios Aristodemou
- Eftychios Aristodemou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a hoax. Google search returns not a single hit linking this person to NASA. Creator's user name is the same, and the article has enough spelling errors to show me that they person is not NASA material. I was half tempted to speedy it, but hoaxes are supposed to go through the process, so here we are. Oh, and an IP editor today was trying to add the name of this person to several NASA articles, placing this person's name alongside and equal with Goldin. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The same IP (a single-purpose account) has edited the Eftychios Aristodemou article and also attempted to delete comments by Beeblebrox and myself from the Talk Page. Nelson Nanataktuk (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The spelling of this article's name suggests to me that it looks like a hoax, it looks like gibberish instead of a real name. LetsdrinkTea 02:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but definitely not speedy. Eftychios is a real name [50] and Aristodemou a real last name [51] so calling the name gibberish is a bit off-base. That being said, the subject is either made-up/hoax or if real is either non-notable or said notability can't be verified. At least I can't verify it. [52] — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I mentioned on the talk page that this appears to be a Greek name. If we could get someone who can read Greek, they might be able to check the Greek Wikipedia. If you check the very first revision of the article, it looks like it was copy/pasted from another Wikipedia. It does seem somewhat unlikely that someone could attain such an important post at NASA at only twenty five. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Probably Cypriot, Ευτύχιος Αριστοδήμου; no article on Greek Wiki, no significant match on Google; doesn't seem to be any more notable in Greek than English. Nelson Nanataktuk (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per possible WP:HOAX. No sources for this reportedly notable person. --Artene50 (talk) 06:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The same findings as Linguist, in English and Greek. Nelson Nanataktuk (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Delete What at first appeared to be a bad translation now looks more and more like a bad hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - almost certainly hoax, certainly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - probable hoax riddled with questionable facts; how was he appointed by George W. Bush more than a year before Bush was even elected? evildeathmath 18:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says George H.W. Bush (aka Bush the first) who was also not president at that time, Bill Clinton was still in office. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Don't know if it's a hoax, but it fails WP:V. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Talbert
- Jack Talbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unduly self-serving / self-promotion; lack of reliable sources; questionably noteworthy, as third-party coverage is not significat and is, itself, unsupported by facts/documentation (necessary in science); editor/author of the page appears to be posting his own autobiography, a clear violation of WP:SELFPUB E8 (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prior to posting to AfD, I searched for reliable secondary sources for this individual nothing significant.--E8 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find anything relevant on google as well, delete per WP:N and WP:SPS LetsdrinkTea 02:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - take out the over-bearing personal bio, and you're left with a notable inventor of a super carburetor, and other achievements. Article needs major and heavy-handed editing, but is still a keep. Esasus (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At your suggestion, I trimmed the page of all unsourced and self-published information. Note, the individual in question doesn't claim to be the inventor of the carburetor; he claims to have "worked" with it, his father having been the inventor. He's also researching topics that are flatly pseudoscience, zero point energy and the "permanent magnets" bunk (I removed both of these from the page today - in the History). He has no evidence supporting the claims made of the carburetor, and only minor, local coverage. Do you still feel this is article is notable, and if so, please explain why using the Wikipedia definition.--E8 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - First of all, I agree that this is a bit of a self-indulgent personal bio; however, that is not what moves me to delete. If you review the article there are probably 3 ares that might be considered for Notability."
- Retail Experience - that is not that significant;
- IT work - ditto; and
- Carburetor Design - Here lies the potential Notability. Unfortunately, it appears as if his father did most of the work and that the device although it does save fuel, is not practical. I do not see evidence anyone is breaking down any doors to incorporate the device in future production vehicles - evidence of Notability as an engineer. The fact that it takes 2 minutes to achieve 60 mph and there are many other vehicles that can achieve speed and save fuel also do not point to his Notability as a engineer. I do not see evidence his work is being used to save fuel is an engineering breakthrough that will lead to other changes in the auto industry.
- To further this, I see no evidence, "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." or "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" Sorry... ttonyb1 (talk) 19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should Gasoline Vapor, essentially a parallel article of this one, be proposed for AfD discussion as well? Speedy?--E8 (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - take out the over-bearing personal bio, and you're left with a notable inventor of a super carburetor, and other achievements. I had to totally redesign the entire system based on a conecpt that was never documented. I did that, made improvements and came up with a workable systems for new cars. Every patent I could come up with on the topic was not related to the current research. It was a daunting task. I only mention my father as he was an inventor of note in the sixties and seventies. It was his original design, but his design was not workable outside of a test facility. I made a working model using a 1981 Oldsmobile Delta. In accordance with the current philosophy should there be entries related to avaition on wikipedia apart from the Wright Brothers? Jtalbert (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.217.46 (talk) [reply]
- Thank you for the clarification; clearly, given this admission by the author, the page is based on original research and should be removed.--E8 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Clearly every article in our encyclopedia is based on original research, and should be removed." Wikipedia does not publish original research; we do, however, publish articles based on it. The question (and our guideline) is, has this information been vetted by reliable sources? – 74 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete COI article that doesn't meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mickey Hays
- Mickey Hays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Actor with no major roles, having progeria is not a claim of notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteAfter searching google I could find no evidence of WP:N as well LetsdrinkTea 02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd argue that since his character is most likely the basis for the title "The Aurora Encounter", that role is probably significant, but one such role isn't enough. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, as per nom. --Ged UK (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. MBisanz talk 07:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Warady Group
- Joel Warady Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While Joel Warady may be notable, this company is not. A search brings up nothing but press releases or non-notable industry coverage related to Warady. Flowanda | Talk 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The expertise section also makes it look like an advertising page. LetsdrinkTea 02:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Reuters source refers to the subject indirectly only. It is not a story on the subject itself...which would merit some notability. --Artene50 (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:SPAM. He might be notable, his company isn't. --Ged UK (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG and WP:SPAM. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete Joel Warady Group is the chief marketing company for several notable brands including Enjoy Life Foods (the market leader for Gluten and Allergen-Free foods), Mirage Oral Care (UK brand) and is the chief strategist for Tula Foods (an emerging market leader for whey-protein based yogurt). The company is fairly small and PRIVATELY HELD, which would explain why there are few articles written soley about the Joel Warady Group. Joel Warady, the owner, is the brand itself. He is an extension of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.duan2009 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you are the creator of the article. If you could improve it per WP:CITE with some quality 3rd party references to demonstrate its notability, you might change some minds here.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The size of the company isn't the sole reason there are no sources about it. It's also because it appears to be an unremarkable company. Perhaps as it grows it will become more notable. If he is the brand himself, then this should possibly be merged into his article. Seems like even less of a reason to keep this one. --GedUK 15:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete there is some hope of making this article into something notable but not as written. It reads like a press release or glossy brochure about the company. Not seeing the significant 3rd party coverage that WP:NOTE requires.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE3rd Party Mention -- Citation html is not working, however, Joe Warady Group is featured in Seth Godin's book "Bull Market in 2004" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.210.49 (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' This is the same guy except using a IP to make a comment.Reporting to the noticeboard SNESCDADDON (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and has been so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied, although if anyone would like to continue discussing or see the text, I'll be happy to undelete it. This seems like one of the easier calls to me, because of "The company has launched successful marketing campaigns for clients utilizing Facebook, MySpace, Twitter as well as throughout the blogosphere, establishing relationships with key influencers that are cost efficient and effective in driving sales." I'm uncomfortable with allowing Wikipedia to serve as one of their sales platforms for another 5 days, and I couldn't find a single salvageable paragraph. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
South West Science and Industry Council
- South West Science and Industry Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable: only incidental coverage in the news. A Google News search found 5 references to articles in 2005-2006. Crowsnest (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:N, vanity page for a nonnotable organization LetsdrinkTea 02:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think this is a vanity piece, but it certainly doesn't appear to be a notable organisation. I would expect an organisation like this to have considerably more Reliable sources available. --Ged UK (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sindhi people. MBisanz talk 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Palari
- Palari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A series of tribe-related pages that were created today. Each are single-sentence pages, stating only the tribe name and location of the tribe. Nothing more than glossary entries. Creator seems to have a habit of leaving these fragments around.
Also listing:
- Dahiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rajar (tribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mundro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dharejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Runjha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lakho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Numerio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Narejo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pahnwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--AbsolutDan (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as unreferenced and unverified. Being a stub is not a problem; Being unreferenced, unverified and possibly non-notable(?) is a problem. If someone can rustle up some references for these, I would support merging them all into List of Sindhi tribes or merging and redirecting to Sindhi people. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Sindhi tribes if these can be sourced as being such tribes. StarM 04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to our article, the Sindhi population numbers 55 million, so these tribes might be quite notable. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sources, sources, sources... --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it was a legitimate tribe, I would support keeping. However, I have been unable to locate any confirming that they are. If someone can, I would change my position. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I have been able to find a brief reference to them in this WWF document see [53]. If we get sufficient sources, there may be a case for a compilation article as suggested by Linguist at Large. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability and verifiability are all in question LetsdrinkTea 02:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Use the sources to merge' or Delete if it isn't done by the next time this AfD should close. Capitalistroadster found at least something? If that source is valid then these should be merged as proposed by Linguist. If that isn't done, then nobody cares enough about these articles to maintain them and they should be deleted as sourceless. Miami33139 (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete as per Miami33139. Stifle (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without sources a merger would just perpetuate unsourced material. We should also consider under what criteria should be applied to some of these (where they truly exist) tribes, subtribes, clans, subclans, castes, subcastes or other groupings of family-like structures since notability standards for ethnic groups are handled differently to those for social or family groups. Alas, this isn't the "close case" to evaluate those. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Ang Mo Kio. MBisanz talk 04:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Townsville Primary School
- Townsville Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable primary (grade) school. Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what "WP:N" has to do with it, but this is a Singapore school which was opened by the Minister for Defence, Trade, and Industry, and more recently was the venue for an event organized by the Ministry of Education, at which the Minister for Education presided. It's also one of three participants in the Pathlight project, where schools for autistic children are located close to ordinary schools. I thought those significant facts in September, 2005, and on reviewing them now over three years later I see no reason to change my opinion. The article should be kept. --TS 15:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:N is the general notability guideline, surely you have heard of it? New schools are opened by dignitaries all the time but that does not make them automatically notable, that's a news event - see WP:NOTNEWS. Is the Pathlight project notable, why does participation in it make this school notable? – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable" is a meaningless word. If something is Verifiable then we can discus how to put it into Wikipedia in a way that conforms with the Neutral point of view. If I read about this school some time in the future I'll probably want to refer to Wikipedia to find out about it. Merging the information with some other article might be sensible, but removing verifiable information about significant events doesn't make sense to me. --TS 23:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:N is the general notability guideline, surely you have heard of it? New schools are opened by dignitaries all the time but that does not make them automatically notable, that's a news event - see WP:NOTNEWS. Is the Pathlight project notable, why does participation in it make this school notable? – ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Ang Mo Kio per usual practice. From what TS says the school is potentially notable but needs sources for a stand-alone page. TerriersFan (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per TerriersFan. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/ redirect as is standard policy for K-12 schools that do not fulfill WP:N on their own accord. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only sources I could find for the school indicated it was x km from some other location. Nothing in the sense of reliable sources (third party or otherwise). However, it appears its neighbour school is the first autism school for secondary school students in Singapore. If that hasn't got an article, it should. (Source) - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the local district. The rationale for this being notable are erroneous in my opinion. Who opened the building is not important; officials open buildings all the time, especially public ones. That it hosted a conference for ministers isn't any more important, both are really only news events. Nor is its involvement in a autism programme. The programme itself may be notable, but I don't see why that means this school should be. --Ged UK (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that merging the information to the district and redirecting would be a good way of dealing with the information in the article. --TS 00:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. I do love the arguments that basically go something like "we should be ashamed, biting a new editor instead of helping him" but on the other hand add an "important note" to state that "and the new editor who nominated this article is a SPA". Apart from those amusing asides, consensus is clearly that the available sources are insufficient. Fram (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collaborative Entrepreneurship
- Collaborative Entrepreneurship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertising, original research, essay. Nerfari (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — Nerfari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- At the time of this nomination, Nerfari has under 40 edits.Smallman12q (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - subject is a recognized and studied business method used in development, business and charities and is both notable and being discussed in contempory business circles1, scholarly papers2, government circles3. The article is not well-written but that has never been a reason to delete, someone should improve it. The page must be moved, however, to Collaborative entrepreneurship to correct capitalization. fr33kman -s- 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 18:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I just tried to clean this up but didn't get very far. For one, there are no sources. For another, what on earth does "It puts each subject area in full perspective and then carefully selects and entrepreneurs globally the very best ideas the field has produced" mean? It scores so well on the buzzword bingo meter that I half suspect it was written by a marketing-speak generator. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Author started this at WP:AFC, then not wanting to improve it there after it was put on hold, started it in main space where it was speedied once, then recreated it again, and here we are. Fails [WP:V]] and WP:RS. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it does seem like this is a potential subject for an article, but I still believe the current article is not suitable for wikipedia. Nerfari (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while this seems like it may be important, little to none of this is verifiable. LetsdrinkTea 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is potential for an article here. Stanford University Press has published a book on the subject. [54]. A Google books [55] and Google Scholar [56] search indicates that there is something for people to work on in creating an article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then delete again, and delete once more just to be sure. This moves beyond bollocks and into bullshit territory: Through an ecosystem of businesses and citizen sector organizations, collaborative entrepreneurship leverages the critical strengths of each actor to transform markets and deliver essential products and services to low-income consumers. The result is hybrid social business models that leverage the strengths of both sectors to achieve both profits and social impact. If you are going to misuse the English language this way, you shouldn't be allowed to speak it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure nonsense.--Sloane (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a collection of buzzwords with very little coherent meaning. I'd classify it as OR if it was translated from marketing speak to regular English. External links to ashoka.org throughout article text indicate this is some sort of spam. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 00:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMPORTANT NOTE: The nominator of this article is a WP:Single Purpose Account with 36 edits. Wikipedia:Sock#Characteristics_of_sock_puppets states:
- "Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers...or participate in procedures like Articles for deletion"
- Nerfari's third edit was to add this complex template to an article: {{db|advertising, essay, OR}} In those 36 edits, he has flawlessly added and argued 2 Afds.1 2 Ikip (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be ridiculous. Perhaps he was an anon editor who decided to finally make an account, perhaps he forget his old password and decided it was simpler to make a new account, or perhaps his primary interest is in removing junk from Wikipedia. You really need to read WP:SPA closer, particularly the portions about assuming good faith. In fact, looking through his contributions, I don't even know what you might say his "single purpose" is; the articles he's nominated for deletion are in no way related. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Who was the author of this article originally? The revision history shows the nominator, when he first created the AfD, the Logs on this page show that administrator User:Akradecki moved it around, and deleted it several times. Ikip (talk) 09:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer, User:Ashokakshah a new editor with only 10 edits. No surprise there. Ikip (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief explanation as to the confusion: User:Ashokakshah first created this in the AfC area, and when it was put on hold, created it again rather than address the issues, and then created as a 3rd dupe in article space, but still with an AfC template. I initially speedied this version as a duplicate and was going to let the AfC version run its course, because at that time it wasn't deemed meeting article criteria (it still isn't, IMO). However, by that time another AfC regular had declined the version there, stating that it was a dupe of this version which was up for AfD. With that one declined, I elected to undelete this one and let the AfD run its course. A mess, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that the User:Ashokakshah was gaming the system to get this basic promo piece for a book into article space, where it doesn't belong. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer, User:Ashokakshah a new editor with only 10 edits. No surprise there. Ikip (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Nominator states: "Original research" This is false. Please strike this claim nominator. 15 Articles on Google news, including A new concept of entrepreneurship: "The current buzz word is “collaborative entrepreneurship” (CE)" Washington Post, The Purchase Of a Lifetime. The book: Collaborative Entrepreneurship How Communities of Networked Firms Use Continuous Innovation to Create Economic Wealth from the esteemed Stanford University Press, 6900 google hits.
As typical, the nominators' first and only edit to the page was to add a AfD tag, if the editor would have followed WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE, and Wikipedia:Notability which state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." the nominator may have found these sources.
Re: "Advertising" and "essay" accusation, the editor has 10 edits, with a little coaching, he could become an active member of the wikipedia community. We could have helped him build this article up to meet and exceed all of our pleathora of guidelines. But instead, the editor's user page when I went there had 3 warning templates and not a single "welcome". With treatment like this it any wonder that the Economist blames the drop of wikipedia on behavior like this?
I could rewrite this article, but it is too late, it will be deleted because the delete editors above didn't bother to check sources before voting to delete, or help this new fledgingly editor. Better it be userfied and the new editor can work on this page in relative peace, at least for a short period of time. [57] Ikip (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Vapid vague management speak bullshit (and as my PhD was partly about organisational management, I've seen plenty). Could be covered in three lines in Social enterprise --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - the sources are dire, two were press releases (which I've removed) and the rest of the article reads as promotional material for the book that is the only source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a limited look earlier in the academic literature and the term seems to be used in a fairly wooly and interchangable fashion with social enterprise (which this article says it is a branch of) - I'd have no objection to merging the limited definition and single reference to there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - on a quick search, the term seems to be used mainly in connection with this book; for the book it fails WP:SPAM and for any other use of the term, as Cameron Scott says just above, it is used in a fairly loose fashion and fails WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brighouse Town F.C. season 2008-09
- Brighouse Town F.C. season 2008-09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Season-by-season articles should not run to teams as low down the football league ladder as Brighouse Town F.C. because they do not gain enough notability from independent sources. Secondly the information on this page is entirely wrong and relates to Huddersfield Town and not Brighouse Town Peanut4 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Peanut4 (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 01:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – PeeJay 01:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Definitely ♣PrincessClown♥ 02:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's all well and good using an existing article as a "template" for a new one, but the creator could at least have changed something other than the title before bunging it straight into mainspace. Oh, and even if he had it would still have been a delete, as this team is far too far down the English football league system to merit individual season articles -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've never laughed at anything on Wikipedia as much as I have just done: that's not Brighouse Town FC's 08/09 season page, that's a (very slightly) changed version of Huddersfield Town F.C.'s 08/09 season page. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the data was right, it would still be a delete as Brighouse Town are too low down the ladder, but as it stands it's one step away from being a WP:HOAX. --Ged UK (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn (NAC). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Aboard! 20th Century American Trains
- All Aboard! 20th Century American Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable U.S. postage stamp issue. These stamps had no special artistic, commercial or historic significance. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The stamp series did receive a fair amount of media coverage. Seems to pass WP:N. Why not? Zagalejo^^^ 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for meeting WP:GNG. If possible I'd prefer merging this stubby thing in some larger list or article, but I'm not well-versed enough in stamps to find such a target. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has sources and coverage, so it's notable. Ancemy (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems notable and that is what matters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article meets WP:GNG. it has independent sources, so I am not sure why Pastor Theo nominated it for deletion. Perhaps he needs to read the guidelines to avoid wasting peoples time. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing the nomination and I apologize for "wasting peoples time." The nomination was an error -- I made the mistake of judging the subject from its philatelic value within the USPS commemorative stamp program (I am a long-time stamp collector) when I should have been judging the article as per Wikipedia standards. I won't make that mistake again. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Bowlin
- Andrew Bowlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't think this article meets the guidelines set at WP:ENTERTAINER. None of his roles in films and television shows are for named characters, and I find no independent third-party sources via Google. howcheng {chat} 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was also unable to find sources on Google. Non notable LetsdrinkTea 01:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure where it says, that characters have to have a definate name. And Andrew Bowlin pops up on google and on google images. Im not sure where the other individual is looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.243.251 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing that says characters have to have a name, but use your common sense -- usually characters without names are minor characters, with very few notable exceptions. And we didn't say that Bowlin doesn't turn up on a Google search; just that are no reliable sources. Here are the results I get on the first page: Myspace, Facebook, IMDB, then a baseball player, then our article. Can you find anything in Entertainment Weekly or Variety or the Los Angeles Times where any of the information in the article can be verified? howcheng {chat} 04:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is unfair to delete the article. There are people on here that have been in one play, and they have an article, there are people on here that have wrote one poem, and they are calling themself a famous author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.243.251 (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are articles like that, please list them here, and we can examine them for deletion as well. There are currently 6,820,935 articles on Wikipedia; not everything gets scrutinized. howcheng {chat} 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. Nobody is disputing his existence, but Wikipedia isn't a repository for every actor that appeared in every film (that's IMDB) or play. --Ged UK (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is Andrew Bowlin, and I have read all the comments posted above, and I can't help but find it a bit humorous. I have an adoring family/fan base, lol, who felt it necessary to post this, so please, delete the article. Perhaps a more notable Andrew Bowlin will come along that will deserve an article here on Wikipedia, we shall see, but please, for now, delete it.
Respectfully,
- Andrew Bowlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABowlin (talk • contribs) 05:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A9 - article that doesn't indicate importance and whose parent band's article never existed/has been deleted. What a mouthful :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For Those Who Don't Believe
- For Those Who Don't Believe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Album by a not notable band. Band article was deleted after this AfD discussion. Enigmamsg 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable non-charting album. No reliable 3rd party sources WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find evidence of notability on Google LetsdrinkTea 01:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - If the band doesn't have an article, then surely an album from them also shouldn't an article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable albuim, fails WP:NALBUM. --Ged UK (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. After reviewing the discussion referenced by T L Miles, this does qualify for speedy under G4 - recreation of an article deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Panarabism and bigotry connection
- Panarabism and bigotry connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems like a huge synthesis of conclusions, and a case of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for an opinion. The title dooms it never to be neutral, more of an essay than an encyclopedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SYNTHesized essay. JJL (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:SYNTH and above. LetsdrinkTea 00:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is a recreation of one of several identical deleted articles created by one of several sock/meatpuppets last year, from this source: /masteringwiki/PanArabism.html See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti_Jewish_Arabism and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarthaFiles T L Miles (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we could get an admin to look at the deleted article and determine just how similar it is, it may qualify for speedy deletion under criteria G4 Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are identical (see the lisnk above). This and previous names can never be used for anything but propaganda, and that's a web page advising people on how to recreate this propaganda verbatim. They should be Deleted and Salted and these throwaway usernames should be checked as socks and/or banned. T L Miles (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt The links T L Miles put up are shocking. This is terrible pov pushing. I did some copyedit on the article out of good faith to the editor. I feel like I have been bamboozeled.--Adam in MO Talk 06:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:OR and WP:Synth. --Ged UK (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Kellogg
- Michael Kellogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
notability is not established. The rationale (which I think was used to contest the prod some months ago) is basically WP:CRYSTAL, that the article will be of use "in the future" whenever this supposed trial resolves. However, this trial is not even listed as a representative matter on the law firm's website, and there is no information on the results of the hearing available. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here are some potential sources covering the subject's involvement in the cases described in the article: [58][59]. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that at least put s some sort of closure on the thing. The first article at link 2 clearly states that the case was thrown out, so whatever notoriety Kellogg may have speculatively gained is now a moot point. The AT&T case is simply not enough to meet notability criteria, especially since the article creator's point was the 9/11 Saudi connection and what the case was going to do when it went to trial. In short, a lot of assumption over adherence to policy. MSJapan (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing significant on this person. Seems very much a one eventer. --neon white talk 00:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, one (losing) event guy. --Ged UK (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two really major cases, one of international significance, and adequate sources for them.DGG (talk)
- Keep enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the GNG. RMHED. 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One eventer, per WP:BIO. And the coverage was for the lawsuit he was in not himself. LetsdrinkTea 00:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are no sources which indicate that he is notable at present. If and when he becomes notable as a member of the judiciary or a national leader of the legal professional, we can create an article on him then. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- a lawyer's notability is from the work he does. Lead council in a particularly major case covered by general national sources is sufficient. OneEvent does not rationally apply if the even is sufficiently notable--but it would not apply anyway as he had other important cases. Though one must be a lawyer to become a judge, its a different career. I accept that demonstrating the notability of lawyers and businessmen is a little tricky under our usual roles, because there's less concrete things to point to than creative professions or office-holders. DGG (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland Crew
- Maryland Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-varsity program at the University of Maryland, College Park. No demonstrated notability. fuzzy510 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not many google hits either LetsdrinkTea 00:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Veneto-Brazilian
- Veneto-Brazilian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a made-up phrase by an editor pushing Venetian nationalism and with no understanding of our policy on reliable sources (looking at his other articles). dougweller (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Attempts to create new nations through Wikipedia pages are doomed to failure. SkipSmith (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete made up borderline nonsense LetsdrinkTea 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A1. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Net-C
- Net-C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not-notable software. No reviews or outside mentions that I could find; just the fact that it exists. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 02:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No evident news, scholar, or books hits for any date for "Net-c" + dgtalize (the creators); web hits don't even appear to offer any reviews, so not notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chak 128 NB
- Chak 128 NB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability issues this place is not notable enough to be added in Wikipedia BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has long been accepted that villages are considered notable. In Pakistani Punjab villages are known by numbers rather than names - see Chak (village) - but that in no way diminishes their notability. This confirms that the village exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if it has long been accepted that villages are notable, please provide a link that demonstrates this. Unless that happens, I think we should delete this as non-notable. SkipSmith (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OUTCOMES#Places Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Real place where actual people live LetsdrinkTea 01:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability isn't an issue as already discussed, but this google search shows the article contents are utterly non-verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The question of notability is moot; as demonstrated, villages are inherently notable. The question is of verifiability. A small village like this isn't going to get many internet hits, but the link provided by Phil Bridger is enough for me. --Ged UK (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Long standing consensus states that populated places are inherently notable, as stated at WP:OUTCOMES and WP:DEFACTO. Grandmartin11 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ipsupermarket
- Ipsupermarket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Advertisement page for a non-notable business: no references were found in a Google News, Books, and Scholar search Gonzonoir (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion and prod; an IP removed the speedy and the creator removed the prod with a misleading edit summary and no rationale. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should really have been a speedy delete per G11 (Blatant advertising). Everything Gonzonoir wrote is accurate. In fact, any mention I can find on the web is advertising. —Mrand Talk • C 14:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete blatant advertising page of non notable business LetsdrinkTea 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:SPAM --Artene50 (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. --Ged UK (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Schlund
- Dan Schlund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vanity. Previous nom should have passed as a deletion. A sympton of WP:1E. Also sufferes from COI, as subject of article is main contributor. Thus, reads like an advertisement, and is WP:SPAM.
I redirected this to Jet pack but anon user keep undoing the edit. It is currently a redirect, but I suspect this will not last. Last version of the article is here smooth0707 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: all sources I could find on the subject are from his own personal website, or cached wiki servers. No reliable third party sources. smooth0707 (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: there are about 20 news hits discussing this person to some extent, including a few with multi-paragraph coverage or that make significant claims, and one in Spanish (albeit a very short one) that focuses on him exclusively. I'd say that's enough to establish notability, and to keep. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: It may be more of a living biography. Possibly changing it to a biography templet will help. Either way, it has merit and notability. Please login to vote. smooth0707 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smooth0707, it's not requisite to log in to vote (though the rules note that anon votes may be given less weight). Gonzonoir (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but users (like anon above), with a vested interest in the article, (like anon above), should disclose such interest. smooth0707 (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though it's close in my mind. There is a dearth of significant independent articles about him, beyond just referring to him doing a public event. It certainly feels like a vanity piece, and he does seem to be a one event guy at this point. --Ged UK (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am in favour of keeping for all the same reasons as stated by Gonzonoir. Even if it is a vanity piece, is should still stay if subject is notable. (PS- is the blanking of the page [now reverted] vandalism?) Esasus (talk) 03:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't blanked...it was a redirect, so no. smooth0707 (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RefNavigator
- RefNavigator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Non-notable software. Sadly, WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to software, but there are no claims of notability, no third-party reliable sources, and no press. My notability tag was removed without explanation, and it's ineligible for a prod (or G4 deletion) as an older version was already prodded, so I am going straight to AfD instead. David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for undoing the tag without explanation-- I'm new to WikiPedia and didn't notice there is an comment textbox until now :( Actually RefNavigator is widely used in China althrough it's newly released. We can easily find lots of third-party Forums which are talking about RefNavigator. But those pages are all Chinese, I'm not sure whether it can be referenced from an English WikiPedia entry:
- http://www.cnblogs.com/xiaotie/archive/2009/01/19/1374577.html
- http://blog.csdn.net/ramacess/archive/2009/02/04/3861265.aspx
- http://bbs.cenet.org.cn/dispbbs.asp?boardid=12625&ID=400010
- http://bbs.bio668.com/read.php?tid-37062.html
- http://quickbest.com.cn/discuz/thread-35277-1-11.html
- --Otcdxn (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, since RefNavigator provides searching interface to Arxiv,it's a new and efficient way to access Arxiv. I think it's useful to keep the link in the "access" section of entry "Arxiv". --Otcdxn (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. References can certainly be in Chinese, but they should be to reliable sources, such as newspapers and magazines, not to blogs and forums. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No 3rd party RELIABLE references (blogs and self published content is not considered reliable nor 3rd party). No proof of notability. Delete as per WP:N, WP:V policy if article cannot provide such. - DustyRain (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page smells like advertising, and is also unverifiable per above. LetsdrinkTea 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in reliable sources that I can see. Those sites all appear to be fora, though I don't read Chinese, so I could easily be mistaken. --Ged UK (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources listed.--Sloane (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like spam, no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. May not be used as much in English speaking countries, but it is in China. EagleFan (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And your reliable sources that support that claim are...? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. It was determined that this is not verifiable. Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totzi
- Totzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The IP who removed the prod tag sums it up best: "This berry is not well-known so it is not found in any stores. It cannot be found in a dictionary either." A Google search also turned up nothing. This utter lack of verifiability means the subject fails one of the two cornerstones of Wikipedia, and the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to ask that this not be closed early. Looking at the article, the existence of this berry sounds very plausible. It is highly likely that it is misspelled, or has various spellings which is making it harder to find references. If possible, I'd like a few days to do some research on this and see if I can find anything in some of my books about Mexico and the peoples of Mexico. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't had the time to do any in-depth research on this, and haven't found any good sources. While my gut tells me this probably exists, I can't do anything to verify it, so I'll have to recommend deletion for now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given that sources are not given and appear to be difficult to find. It seems to be unverifiable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Master/slave (BDSM). MBisanz talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensual nonconsent
- Consensual nonconsent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Looks like original research DimaG (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After weeding through all the Wikipedia mirrors on Google, I couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning this term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Master/slave (BDSM) or with Dominance and submission. It is a minor aspect of a specific type of interaction. Should be a section just like Total power exchange. Owen× ☎ 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Master/slave (BDSM) per OwenX. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Master/slave (BDSM) Per OwenX. --Ged UK (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Seems like a variant of a larger article and with no sources of its own, merging seems best. Ancemy (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Captive orcas. MBisanz talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trua
- Trua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks notability, reliable 3rd party sources. Appears to include original research. Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs, not notable. Duplicates content at Captive orcas Aymatth2 (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable animal LetsdrinkTea 01:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, it is a plausible search term and redirecting would point people to the actual content we have and stop people from creating the separate article over and over again. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Captive orcas, which is where this Orca's parents' info is held. --Ged UK (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to George W. Hart. MBisanz talk 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatible Food Triad
- Incompatible Food Triad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No suggestion of notability within article, none identified with good faith web and news search. Bongomatic 22:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This is a one-off joke, not a real logic problem. The subjective nature of taste should make that much clear. "Go together" is a psychological or physiological relationship, not a logical one. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the conclusion, but not the path there. Plenty of things that are misguided, wrong, or silly have gained notability in the WP sense—this simply isn't one of them. Bongomatic 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but it's being presented as some sort of model logical puzzle. I agree that if it had notability, that would trump my "not a real logic problem" concern. J L G 4 1 0 4 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the conclusion, but not the path there. Plenty of things that are misguided, wrong, or silly have gained notability in the WP sense—this simply isn't one of them. Bongomatic 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's been discussed by at least one reliable source. It's all over the internet. Whether it can be merged somewhere I don't know. But I think it's notable and worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think this is particularly interesting or compelling, but I think it's notable enough RoyLeban (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see notability in ghits that all refer back to this page, which is nothing but a musing on a joke, with a few references to others who have mused similarly. I don't equate notability with scattered but connected musings that happen to be on the internet. J L G 4 1 0 4 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see or find any reliable sources writing about this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to George W. Hart. I've done a couple searches for sources, but like the above voters, I cannot find any independent coverage for this food puzzle. The Incompatible Food Triad fails the general notability guidelines, but this topic merits a brief inclusion in its creator's article since it does have some minor coverage on the Internet, which can be sourced by George Hart's website. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (briefly) and then redirect to George W. Hart as per Cunard. This isn't notable in its own right, and refs seem to be entirely self-pubished. No prejudice to recreating if it becomes notable in the future. --Ged UK (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect I can't see how it's a "joke" as JLG4104 keeps calling it, just because the parameters are rather fuzzy. There's no indication on Dr. Hart's page that the purpose is to be funny or ironic rather than to find actual solutions. I also disagree that whether or not it has enough notability to trump its fuzziness is even an issue – notability is the only element here that matters; the fuzziness plays no role in whether or not it should be deleted. If it's notable, it doesn't matter how fuzzy it is. If it's not notable, it doesn't matter now non-fuzzy it is. As it stands, I agree with the two previous arguments that it may be notable enough within the context of Dr. Hart to be included in his article, but does not appear to have sufficient stand-alone notability. If editors more familiar with Dr. Hart's work believe that it is not a significant enough part of his work to be mentioned, then it's their prerogative to remove it from there. So I say we merge, and put the ball in their court. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per above.--Sloane (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable logic puzzle which hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was given coverage on a notable media broadcast. And you can't merge that much information. So saying Merge, means delete, there nothing but one sentence mentioning it at all on the main article. Many notable people have used this. They must be notable, since they have their own wikipedia pages. ;) Dream Focus 02:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Even taking into account the references found, there is a consensus that the article fails the RS rules and should be deleted. MBisanz talk 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pre channel
- Pre channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article on a particular type of warez trading IRC channel. Due to the nature of the material, it's unlikely that any reliable sources exist, especially for the details. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's no way I can see it passing WP:V, let alone WP:WEB. --Dynaflow babble 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part were you referring to for WP:WEB? Was it the section I pulled for failing WP:EL? Tothwolf (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- fr33kman -s- 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find any reliable sources as per nom its unlikely that reliable sources do exist. Frozenevolution (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've put about 5 hours into tracking down references so far and found a number that seem to back up the majority of the article. I've gone ahead and removed two section from the article that could not be referenced that also clearly failed WP:NOT and WP:EL (which were ironically the two sections that seem to be attracting the most vandalism). One easy to find reference is the book "Software Piracy Exposed", isbn 1932266984, which is also cited in a number of other Warez articles. Earlier revisions of this article actually seem to be more encyclopedic and seem to fit in better with the rest of the Warez category and articles so it might be better to rewrite the article rather than delete it outright. It may also be a worth considering merging this article and a number of other stub articles in the Warez category with the Warez article and provide categorized redirects for them. I think Pre channel could easily fit into a subsection under the Distribution of warez section in Warez. I'd be happy to work on this but I don't I see a reason to put much into Pre channel until after the AfD issue has been decided. If this wasn't currently an AfD and the issue had been raised on the talk page instead I'd probably have already merged and redirected this article. Tothwolf (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or possible Merge/Redirect I've removed two sections of this article that failed WP:NOT, one of which also failed WP:EL. Those certainly didn't qualify the entire article for AfD though. I've linked to a number of sources on the article's talk page that cover the rest of the article but I see no reason to work on rewriting/merging the article until after this AfD is closed. The general concept of a "pre channel" is well known and much of what is left in the article wasn't that difficult to validate. Finding sources to validate the list of commands (if they are even kept when this is revised) was much more difficult but the links on the talk page cover those too. If the nominator wanted to improve the article, he should have made a post on the article's talk page so someone could work on it vs tossing it up on AfD. With comments like "... it's unlikely that any reliable sources exist ...", "There's no way I can see it passing ...", and "... its unlikely that reliable sources do exist ...", it's pretty clear no one even bothered to try to source the material before nominating and "voting". I also feel I should point out this article has been constantly vandalized by people connected to the Warez scene who have been trying (unsuccessfully) to censor it for quite some time (see edit history). Tothwolf (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I made a stab at searching up references online before nominating, but wasn't able to find anything that looked like a WP:RS. As it stands, I'm still dubious about the FileShareFreak citations, but there does appear to be enough to go on now. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure we'd need the FileShareFreak.com links since most stuff seems to be sourceable from the other links, but at least they are from a Warez-related news site. There was a ton of info on sites that I didn't include links to because they didn't look like they'd qualify under WP:RS. After the AfD is closed we need to figure out what and where to merge and also see if any of the other smallish articles that are directly related (such as Nuke (warez), Zero day information, Topsite (warez), etc) also need to be merged/redirected. Maybe much of this should go into a Warez (distribution) article? Tothwolf (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uhm, why is this being relisted again? We've decided to work on it after the AfD is closed. I've removed the material that shouldn't have been in this article to begin with and we've located sources for what's left. Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks notable enough and has potential LetsdrinkTea 01:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless references from reliable sources are added. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As no references.--Sloane (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WTF -- Do people not bother to read? References are on the article's talk page. This should have never been relisted TWICE now. If this gets deleted this will absolutely show a lack of WP:UCS. Tothwolf (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references should be in the article not on the talk page so that the reader can judge their quality (or lack thereof). Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were located after the nominator started the AfD. Feel free to place them in <ref> and {{cite web}}. I'm not going to do so until after this AfD is closed. Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are terrible references.--Sloane (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you at least try to be specific? This seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Two sections in the article itself that I've since removed was what initiated this AfD anyway. Tothwolf (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are terrible references.--Sloane (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were located after the nominator started the AfD. Feel free to place them in <ref> and {{cite web}}. I'm not going to do so until after this AfD is closed. Tothwolf (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The references should be in the article not on the talk page so that the reader can judge their quality (or lack thereof). Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow continued improvement of the article since there is an active good faith effort to address the nom's concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Imperato
- Daniel Imperato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was deleted in early 2006 and then recreated in late 2006. There's been a notability tag on it for more than half a year. I nominated it for speedy deletion through A7 due to the prior deletion, that was contested, so I decided it would be more expedient to go through the standard deletion route. Spinach Monster (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider someone who is a Papal Knight and a Knight of Malta notable, but I'm not sure I should trust the Irregular Times. Is this news source just biased or utter codswollop like The Onion?[60] =-Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, and those 'facts' that could confer notability are not from (word added for clarity) reliable sources. --Ged UK (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts are never reliable sources. Facts are facts (or fabricated truths). Assuming that is a grammatical mishap, why do you think the source is not reliable? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, my earlier comment was missing a 'from'. I'm not sure the Irregular Times is a reliable source either. If it isn't then this guy isn't notable. If it is, then probably he is, but considering that comments within that IT article throw dispute on the validity of that order, I find that unlikely. --Ged UK (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Facts are never reliable sources. Facts are facts (or fabricated truths). Assuming that is a grammatical mishap, why do you think the source is not reliable? - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete papal knights of knights of malta may get a pass into heaven, but not a pass into notability. Little more notable than the average parish priest, who still has to pass WP:BIO - even if these knighthoods are verified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I notice his presidential bid did generate notable news coverage. I would check libertarian publications for articles on him that might provide notability before deleting this. Ancemy (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep These do seem like realiable sources, and he did get some coverage, even it he's not exactly Ross Perot. 7triton7 (talk) 06:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as G12 by Dank55. RMHED. 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Landon IP
- Landon IP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Company failing to meet the notability guidelines for companies. It has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Edcolins (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Edcolins (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G12 and salt. Copy/paste from [61] This has been speedied twice and recreated. --L. Pistachio (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied per G12, salted for one week, and watchlisted. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.