Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 29: Difference between revisions
Adding Covingham and Nythe |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covingham and Nythe}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay County Fair}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clay County Fair}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous Warped Tour bands}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Previous Warped Tour bands}} |
Revision as of 19:47, 29 January 2008
< January 28 | January 30 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Covingham and Nythe
- Covingham and Nythe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Looks like it's only really there to provide an external link ThereOnTheStairs (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. NN Council ward in a small city. The wards might merit a mention under Swindon#Government but no evidence of independent notabity found. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Clay County Fair
- Clay County Fair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
google and google news searches return hits, however none seem to assert any notability. Yes, the fair has attracted a number of name performers, but these people have performed all over the place -- nothing apparently special or notable about their appearance at this fair. Article has been orphaned since November 2006 Travellingcari (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Passes WP:ORG for notability (over 1,000 hits on google news) & not totally orphaned per links. Could use some tidying for NPOV -- Mitico (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the claims of being the largest county fair in the state of Iowa, the second largest agriculture exposition in North America, and one of the largest county fairs in the United States assert its notability. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It is by far the largest county fair in the Midwest, and is widely known in the region, and as noted, passes notability tests. --Moline670 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rename ad possibly reorganise. Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Previous Warped Tour bands
- Previous Warped Tour bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is basically a directory listing and as such not encyclopedic. Entries in the list have no encyclopedic text regarding them. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory.
It is also completely unreferenced. (1 == 2)Until 19:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move to List of Warped Tour lineups by year and reorganize as such. There is ample precedent for such lists. See List of Lollapalooza lineups by year; many others are incorporated into the festival articles themselves but are obvious breakout candidates. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move as per Dhartung. Great idea. Kingturtle (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I can see keeping this information, but there is most likely a better manner in which to do so then this current article. --T-rex 06:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andrew c [talk] 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Move' per Dhartung. That seems like the best use of the information. matt91486 (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Move per Dhartung. Doczilla (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Move When I created it, I was pretty much just to move the information from cluttering Warped Tour's page. Dark jedi requiem (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 10:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Unleaded (band)
- Unleaded (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsigned band claiming winning some nn battle of the band and a redlink award; sourced to its home page and myspace, etc., fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Carlossuarez46 & WP:BAND. Could not find any independent mention of this band -- Mitico (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep (but rename) - A Google search returns just under 2000 hits. Doesn't winning a competition organised by a major music channel confer some sort of notability? Oh... but I'd rename the article - all the references I could see refer to the band as The Unleaded. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:BAND. Winning a competition on an island with a population as tiny as Cyprus means nothing. The "VH1 Song Contest" or whatever it's called gets only a handful of hits, obviously not a major award either. Gatoclass (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Tears Of Rage
- Tears Of Rage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Planned album that has been pushed back for years, of a band that is falling apart. Recording has not yet begun. There is so little information available, that it is impossible to give any information about it. To be short, it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and almost no information. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- Cenarium (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, add back if and when album gets done Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Henry's Uptown Bar
- Henry's Uptown Bar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Claim of notability is that it was regularly visited by Lee Harvey Oswald. That may not be enough for WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, there are also claims that it's one of the last of the NOLA corner bars, but in the end there aren't enough references to indicate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage from sources Corpx (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above -- Cenarium (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Todd Speakman
- Todd Speakman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nominated for deletion because this is a hoax biographical article -- Mitico (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well maybe not a hoax for sure, but definately NN & unsourced. Mitico (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Article does not have reliable sources and fails verifiability. The claim to notability is that he is a professional indoors lawn bowler with a second place finish in the 2006 World Championships in the Singles. I know next to nothing about lawn bowling. In my googling, as far as I can tell, this page appears to represent the actual draw from 2006. There is no Todd Speakman listed. I am unable to find any mentions of Todd Speakman anywhere that appear to be about the individual listed in the article. I may have erred in my research, but I am simply unable to find any other results. -- Whpq (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - googling "Todd Speakman" together with the word "lawn" gets exactly 7 google hits. Looks like a hoax article to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Franjo Ladan
Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO as he has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete until such time as he plays in a senior competition. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, also going by creator's contribs, a possible case of WP:COI. Paulbrock (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no assertion of notability, King of the NorthEast 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Sandstein (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Also deleted:
- List of errors on stamps of Portugal and the colony of Lourenço Marques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
- List of errors on stamps of Portugal and Portuguese colonies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by closing admin)
- Category:Lists of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nominating this page and all the linked pages; they comprise a list of misprints of stamps from countries that are ex-colonies of Portugal. I can see that someone is putting substantial effort into this, but have trouble seeing how this esoterica is even remotely encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfire (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment as a procedural note, if multiple articles are nominated (as noted above, "this page and all the linked pages"), then they all should be noted and tagged. The list of articles is below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have tagged all articles listed below with AfD templates. I have no opinion on deletion, though a merge of the various years might not be unwise (Angola 1886 with 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1921, for example). I tagged the articles mainly because, had they been included here but not templated, they may have been improperly deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Açores 1871/1876 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1886 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1912 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1914 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Angola 1921 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1902 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Guiné 1913 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1871 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1873 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of India 1913 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Inhambane 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Inhambane 1917 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1895 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1899 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Lourenço Marques 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1943 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1952 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Mozambique 1957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Nyassa Company 1901 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Nyassa Company 1903 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps of Zambezia 1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete defines cruft. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep these need more context, but fundamentally there are lots of encyclopedic value in philatelic and numismatic errors. A quick scan for references shows about 600 hits in Google books for "postage stamp"+errors, including books cited by the Encyclopedia Americana. It's not much more cruft than explanations of esoteric articles of interest only to software engineers, car enthusiasts, American Idol viewers, UFOlogists, or other small field. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and strawman: nobody is nominating Postage stamp error for deletion. Jfire (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a pretty-much perfect example of what the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" part of WP:NOT is all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment. There is nothing the least bit indiscriminate about this information. I would question whether it would find a place in specialized encyclopedias about philately: that's really the only question, and we'll need someone who knows something about philatelic encyclopedias to answer it. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep As stated above, this information is not indiscriminate and has plenty of value in a specialized encyclopedia. The only question is whether there are actual listings of this elsewhere in published materials, and that User:JPPINTO didn't just dig through his/her stamp collection to get this info. Joshdboz (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it doesn't even matter if someone else has published a listing of errors on Portuguese ex-Colony stamps (which I highly doubt). It's simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. These articles fall victim to both WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#IINFO, not to mention WP:Overcategorization. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify my argument: I don't doubt that this information is contained in some form in philatelic catalogs. But (a) they wouldn't organize it like this (why "Portuguese ex-Colonies"?), and (b) that doesn't even matter, because, Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog, in the same way it's not a telephone directory or sales catalog. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all I agree entirely with the statement that Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. Furthermore, I imagine that someone referred to a catalog-- either printed or internet site-- to get this very specific information. Anyone who is serious about collecting stamps, coins, or anything else where authenticity is a high priority IS NOT going to rely on a source that "anyone can edit". If you happen to have a rare Angolan stamp from 1912 and you think it's even more rare because of a printing error, this isn't the place to verify it. Philatelists, don't use Wikipedia as your website. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete We're not a catalog of printing errors on stamps, neither should we document every stamp ever published. Transwiki/USERFY if possible Corpx (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This is very specialized info even by philatelists' standards. There is a project in wikibooks that aims to be a complete catalog, the lists could be transwikied there. Stan (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Does Wikia have a Philately wiki? -- RoninBK T C 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Josh Rosenthal
- Josh Rosenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Blatant advertising; the page is written by User:Joshrosenthal. Prod removed by anon without comment; likely Rosenthal when he wasn't logged in. I can't find a trace of press on this guy; while there is a musician and a record exec with this name who might deserve a page, I don't think this fellow does. Chubbles (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete, among other things, fails WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:AUTO, possibly WP:HOAX (I can't imagine that none of the things in that rambling article aren't embelishments), and WP:V. I don't know that this is WP:SPAM but it is certainly WP:SOAP. Redfarmer (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete' To be fair - and if true - as an actor training at NIDA and work with Sydney TC is possibly notable but the rest needs huge amount of work! Vultureofbook (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - there is nothing in WP:BIO that says if someone trained at a prestigious location they are automatically notable. Rather, there are several clear ways to research someone's notability, primarily third party sources that can be cited in regards to said person. I think this article clearly fails the primary notability guidelines in that there appears to be no reliable independant sources for it. Anything could make someone "possibly notable" but the point of AfD discussions is to look for facts relating to that notability, not voting keep because they may be notable. This may have come off harsh, but I'm just trying to be direct and I obviously assumed your vote was in good faith. - Gwynand (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah just had a google search on him and have changed my vote! Vultureofbook (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. From a google search, it appears there may be a UFC referee who may actually be notable enough to have an WP article... but not this Josh Rosenthal. Gwynand (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Its obviously a puff article for someone who isnt very notable at all. Kingpomba (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per all above. freshacconcispeaktome 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Unopposed
This was an article that was originally listed as CsD. I feel that it has a little bit too much credibility to deleted it arbitrarily without an AfD. We have here another local band with questionable notability and a member lineup that is chronically unstable. Trusilver 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This was speedied once before and has since been recreated and significantly expanded. Keeper | 76 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. But they are still not notable by our standards for bands. So I guess this means they are now Opposed? Keeper | 76 18:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. After the AfD, we will have to leave a message on their myspace pages saying that they need to change their name. :) Trusilver 01:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BAND. --EndlessDan 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Been through the article and as far as I can tell, it doesn't fulfil the criteria set out at WP:BAND. Simple as — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fails WP:BAND. Bart133 (t) (c) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Trusilver told me I could post here. Sorry I responded late... I had no access to the net. Ya know what, I don't get it. I just think that everyone is taking wiki a little far on the standards. I may be alone on that, but from my understanding and interaction with others it doesn't to be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unopposed98 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per DGG. Black Kite 12:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Kyle Cave
Fails WP:PROF. No indication of awards, expert in any category, well known body of work, etc. Rtphokie (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Racepacket (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete there does not seem to be sufficient coverage by third-parties that would allow the article to grow beyond a permanent shortish stub. Pichpich (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep based on Google scholar citation results. I also found a couple news stories where he is mentioned, but only in a trivial way as supplying a quote on someone else's research, so I don't think that helps much. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete notability and WP:PROF - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Cave is a full professor-- at a significant research university, with numerous publications; the publications and the citations to them establish the notability. Professor become notable by dint of their research and the recognition by the community as given by peer review and citation is the external RS for that. Notability is judged by the standards of their profession. So, what are his papers and their citations? He has 36 peer-reviewed papers in Web of Scienc, which is good, but not exceptional. But his most cited paper, in JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE Volume: 15 Issue: 3 Pages: 419-433 Published: 1989 is cited 645 times and his next most cited, ins cited 303 times. This is notability by any standard for a researcher. DGG (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. DGG's analysis is persuasive.--Kubigula (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
E. Bernard Jordan
- E. Bernard Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
DELETE. NN and unsourced - unless being a fraud would give him some notability. Fails WP:BIO. EndlessDan 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the article in nypress is an independent reliable source, and the significant coverage there makes this pass WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think that a single newspaper article devoted to making fun of the guy establishes notability. Deor (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Deor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 02:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Somethings Gotta Give (club)
- Somethings Gotta Give (club) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable quarterly club night; trivial references (mere mentions or "night out"-type listings). Fails WP:NOTE. Precious Roy (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete as per nom. Absolutely no claim of notability in article; borderline advert. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Being a resident of the town and an advocate of the local music scene i believe this entry to be valid and worthwhile. The references to an "advert" are unfounded as no mention of upcoming events, dates, locations or even upcoming posters are shown. This is purely a historical and referenced article of local interest. Do not delete. I'm a relatively new user so if this is out or accordance with wiki user behavior I apologize. --Staticseven (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Staticseven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - in the end, not that notable. Really falls victim per WP:LOCAL as this has gone unnoticed outside of Bolton --T-rex 06:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again I have to disagree. It seems the main argument of WP:LOCAL is that most articles in this case are considered a stub. I don't believe this is the case in this article. --Staticseven (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2008 (GMT)
- Keep this is not a stub or advertisement. it is background information on a club night with a groundbreaking ethos. i don't understand why this information is up for deletion. --Stairsfallingdownstairs (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Stairsfallingdownstairs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - fails to convince me of any notability. Also, no indication of any "ground-breaking" ethos. - fchd (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
KeepMy final point is that if local people/fans have bothered to comment against this articles proposed deletion then its seems to be a worthy addition to wiki. Local people feel it is worthwhile to wiki this subject for others by the simple fact the page has been created, and myself and others are fighting for its position. Surely any serious addition (i.e not comic or fraudulent) deserves a place on wikipedia? --Staticseven (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2008 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.244.124 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)- Comment One !vote per person, please. See also WP:NOTE w/r/t notability as a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. Precious Roy (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Frankly, I would have speedied as G11--the listing of events in the past in this sort of detail is an implied advertisement for the club, and inappropriate use of WP. That some local people like it is not unexpected. I suppose every amateur in their line-up approves of the idea heartily, also. DGG (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Jeeze, when you tell me I shoulda speedied it, I guess I really shoulda. Precious Roy (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as a website with no assertion of importance or significance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Diversity Trainer Network (service)
- Diversity Trainer Network (service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Originally tagged for speedy as spam, removed by author. Even in the edited form, it still looks like spam. No sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as non-notable. --Bonadea (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy A7 and so tagged. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete possibly a speedy.DGG (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The Diversity Trainer Network is an organization for diversity professionals. As such, it serves an important role in supporting the cultural diversity profession. The article described the organization, its purpose, and its importance as an education and training entity.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources added to establish notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yaw-Yan
Not Notable, unsourced statements for 9 months, now removed, not claim of notability & one source about a club opening, in addition still has a some what advertorial tone even after basic clean-up. Nate1481( t/c) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481( t/c) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep common form of Filipino kickboxing, notable in FMA for its mountain kick. Ref.: Yaw Yan, The Philippine Dance of Death ("Inside Kung-fu" Magazine, November 1982, Vol. 9, No. 11). From a TV show ("Gameplan"): [1]. Canadian school: [2]. Public demo.: [3] (look under 12:45PM). Stickwork: [4]. Blog: [5]. Plenty of videos on YouTube too. JJL (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I was the one who added the club opening ref. I searched for references online yesterday and only came up with this and other articles. The other articles suggested that the sport is used in mixed-martial arts tournament and that these practitioners actually won. Even if they are relaible sources (newspapers) I just didn't feel that they will add anything significant to the article other than "Yaw-yan is used in various mixed-martial tournaments in the Philippines [1][2][3]." It is also featured on TV, problem is I don't know how to cite tv programs or remember episodes. The usual lack of online sources for Phil. subjects also pose a problem (I think sources in the net goes only as far as early 2000's)--Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Vasquez family massacre
- Vasquez family massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a plot summary for a soap opera. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. It fails WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a plot element of no evident wider significance. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per not notable. Soaps do have story line articles but they are generally all on one page and this is a plot that took place on The 101 on DirecTV. Definitely not notable enough for its own article. IrishLass (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this "article" is orphaned, not notable and any some of its info is already summarized elsewhere. — TAnthonyTalk 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Benjamin Storm Keough
- Benjamin Storm Keough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy. Only assertion of notability is relation to Lisa Marie Presley. DarkAudit (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (but correctly declined speedy). Notability is not inherited. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Martijn Hoekstra (that's hard to spell). Notability isn't inherited in any way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, notability is not inherited, I agree, per various precedents.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per consensus and WP:MUSIC. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Return (band)
- Return (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable. Orphaned for nearly 2 years. No other sources but their home site. Simple searches yield nothing. Metal Head (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Several major label albums (easily verifiable via online shops), several hits on national charts (ref added). I've tagged it as needing more references, which is really the only problem with it. Not the easiest band name to search for and get meaningful results, but a band that has had hit albums is bound to have received coverage. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Michig; band has had multiple major-label albums and at least one chart single, so they meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This band was really big in Norway. I know this is the English-speaking Wikipedia, but nr 1 in a smaller country should qualify. Inserting a hit, like [6] ,gives 23 K Ghits. Greswik (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable with charting hits. Chubbles (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Institute of bio-it
- Institute of bio-it (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non notable organization, the article was tagged for speedy deletion for copyvio , then proposed for deletion, the author has removed the tag. There is a conflict of interest too. Cenarium (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable organization. It appears to be a start-up as the main website (which seems to be the only source) is not filled. It has a surface but no content.--Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the fact that the author has repeatedly removed the PRODs without any comment on either the discussion page or edit summary caused alarm bells for me! The article makes no claim of notability, and googling the exact phrase returns just under 600 hits, one of which is this link which I think is a page about the author of the article, and which leads me to agree with Cenarium's view that there is indeed a conflict of interest. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete but dont judge by removing repeated prods--the second prod is my fault--I should not have placed it, but sent it here directly. If one prod is removed, there's no point in another. But this srtuck me as typical attempt at publicity for a new organisation. DGG (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - it wasn't the repeated PROD removal I was judging; it was the repeated PROD removal with no comment on the discussion page or edit summary.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
BusinessLine
Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability, only that it exists. Mere existence is not enough. DarkAudit (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - the article is just a list of publications, with no encyclopedic value that I can see. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note IP editor has removed the AfD tag and blanked this page. Both have been reverted. DarkAudit (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete This is one more in a long line of afd nominated articles by this user that smack of WP:Spam and lack notability.
--Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep No delete votes--JForget 00:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Atma Singh
Vanity article, almost entirely written by subject. Only link also added by subject. RolandR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete None of the sources are reliable, and the article reeks of vanispamicantspell. Delete the pics too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)- Keep per Relata refero's sources, seems to be notable indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. TenPoundHammer's likely right, but I don't feel I can truly judge this one myself - I don't see anything that stands out as true encyclopedic notability. Certainly the tone of it is promotional.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep The article needs massive rewriting, but the man is very very notable. Relata refero (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- If he were truly notable, then an article about him would have been started and edited by someone other than himself. Whether or not there is an article about Singh, the entire content of the current article should go. RolandR (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The fact that he started the article is independent of whether he is truly notable. In this case, he is truly notable, and feel free to cut in down drastically.. But he's notable, and there is content there that is salvageable. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The accomplishments and references add up to notability. Note that the article has been cut back to a stub; earlier versions give a better idea of his achievements. --Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sources identified establish his notability. Has been stubbed so a NPOV/non COI version can be written. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This article is notable, good amount of sources, but needs to be totally rewritten. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, self-promoting spam. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Mike Dooley
Speedy tag for spam removed by author. No secondary independent sources to show notability. DarkAudit (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Very poor article and reeks of self-promotion. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was close, please start a new AfD when the injunction has been lifted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Shane Casey
I was initially going to merge and redirect this to Minor characters in CSI:NY, however I don't know that there's enough here to support that. Shane Casey was a guest star on CSI: NY and while he had more of a role than the typical one episode guest star, I still don't think it meets WP:FICT and warrants inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge? Did they stop doing Minor characters in <tv show> ? Corpx (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- * Comment: that was my own bad link, it should have been Minor characters in CSI: NY. I just think there's a fuzzy line of guest star v. minor character and while he had a "vendetta" that slightly extended his arc, he was still a guest star. While I know other stuff isn't a valid argument, it has some reasoning in that characters who had similar roles (Frankie Mala, DJ Pratt) don't exist, why does this one need to? I've been unable to find any sources that demonstrate real world context other than "{Actor) appears on CSI:NY as (character}" if that makes sense Travellingcari (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep there's a moratorium on merging, per the arb com. DGG (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Link? Not disagreeing, I'd just like to have it so I'm aware of this. Guess the whole CSI:NY project is going on hold then and I'd like to follow it until the moratorium ends or is otherwise settled. Does this affect those that were closed as merge earlier this morning? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Delko and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Elliott (CSI:_Miami)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The "moratorium", as far as I can read, is exclusive to the editors in the Arbcom case itself, is a temporary injunction to stop the edit warring happening there, and is not directed to "all editors". The link is here. If it is to all editors in all discussions regarding fictional characters/episodes, where is that posted, DGG? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The temporary injunction applies to all Wikipedia editors[7] while this arbitration case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The "moratorium", as far as I can read, is exclusive to the editors in the Arbcom case itself, is a temporary injunction to stop the edit warring happening there, and is not directed to "all editors". The link is here. If it is to all editors in all discussions regarding fictional characters/episodes, where is that posted, DGG? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Link? Not disagreeing, I'd just like to have it so I'm aware of this. Guess the whole CSI:NY project is going on hold then and I'd like to follow it until the moratorium ends or is otherwise settled. Does this affect those that were closed as merge earlier this morning? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Delko and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Elliott (CSI:_Miami)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I dont really know, nor do I know whether it even applies or should apply to consensus edits, such as here. The text at [8] reads simply "no editor" without further qualification. I said what I did in the hope of some enlightenment myself. I find ArbCom unpredictable. Either, having decided they must intervene, they will throw it right back at the rest of the community--in which case i would suggest MASEM's revisions of the relevant pages, or they will make some strange decision that will require some odd adjustments in order to live with. DGG (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I just found the talk page related to this. Seems nobody knows...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I dont really know, nor do I know whether it even applies or should apply to consensus edits, such as here. The text at [8] reads simply "no editor" without further qualification. I said what I did in the hope of some enlightenment myself. I find ArbCom unpredictable. Either, having decided they must intervene, they will throw it right back at the rest of the community--in which case i would suggest MASEM's revisions of the relevant pages, or they will make some strange decision that will require some odd adjustments in order to live with. DGG (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Closure of this AFD may be subject to restrictions imposed by ARBCOM, as described at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Halt_to_activities. JERRY talk contribs 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, MAYBE merge There are no sources for the article, so it fails WP:V. There is also no inidication of real world notability. TJ Spyke 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment About the Arbcom case I'm pretty sure they won't go out and ban us or anything if we have a unanimous consensus on what to do with an article, also it is ultimately admins that close the AfDs so if they can always just tell us in the closing if we should hold out on the final decision.--Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Re: "they can always just tell us", that's what I was doing... I relisted this solely because I have been told that it can not be closed as delete at this time due to the injunction. Continued discussion is encouraged in the meantime, but it is unlikely to get closed with a delete or merge outcome anytime soon. JERRY talk contribs 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Diego Lofino
Speedy tag for nonsense removed by author. It's still nonsense. DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: Seems to be a player of Vatican Cities national team. They may not be good, but probably enough to meet WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Delete per Paularblaster- Comment the article as originally posted and tagged was so ludicrous as to cast doubt on the existence of this person. There are still no sources to prove that this person actually exists and plays professionally. DarkAudit (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, it looked like utter nosense. I tagged it as unreferenced. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment the article as originally posted and tagged was so ludicrous as to cast doubt on the existence of this person. There are still no sources to prove that this person actually exists and plays professionally. DarkAudit (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The name alone gets no hits outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Either a hoax or very non-notable; note that all the other players on the team are red links. (I just can't help linking to red link.) Furthermore, the team itself seems marginally notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- http://nationalfootballteamsnonfifa.741.com/Vatican.htm is a source. It's not very good. But it's a source. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable player. I realise that Vatican City is a very small nation, but you'd have thought a player in their team would get more than nine Google hits! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The Vatican doesn't have a professional team. This might clarify things a little. Whether ad hoc sides fielded for one-off games against Monaco and San Marino even count as a Vatican City national football team (even an amateur one) is itself debatable. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Vatican City national football team should be fixed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. The nominator has gone ahead and done the merge, so there is nothing more for the AfD to accomplish at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Butch Coolidge
Butch Coolidge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Merge to List of Pulp Fiction characters per discussion here.--The Dominator (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy close. This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge (though I understand, without a nom to delete this isn't the pp for it) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Not a deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (is speedy keep a valid option here?) on the grounds that it's not a deletion proposal, and this is Articles For Deletion. If you want to merge it, use the usual merge proposal channels. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Procedural - nominator wants a merge and this is not the proper venue. Edward321 (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
George W. Bush (band)
- George W. Bush (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Prodder believes the band is a hoax and has done some research to try and prove the claims in the article. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I've done some searching myself and have found no sources, reliable or otherwise, to establish the existence of this band. The band is not listed on the website of the supposed record label, and a search for the band members doesn't turn up any results. - auburnpilot talk 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as hoax. No search results for the band plus various keywords; one of the album names turns up zero hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails WP:V at the very least.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if it isn't a hoax, it isn't notable. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Hoax & WP:BAND. --EndlessDan 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
National Lampoon's Adam & Eve
- National Lampoon's Adam & Eve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable film. Appears to be direct-to-video. Prod tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable. Even the official site has been taken down! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep. If the fact a website no longer exists becomes criteria for notability, 99% of all film and TV articles would need to be deleted. Produced by a major brand, released internationally (I bought a copy at a Best Buy here in Canada). Perfectly notable. Unless Wikipedia rules have changed there is no prohibition on direct-to-DVD productions. If that is the case, then I expect to see Justice League: The New Frontier nominated forthwith. Additional: I've removed the advertising copy. It's still a stub, but the National Lampoon connection makes it notable. 23skidoo (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment. I'm concerned about anyone using the end of an official website as justification for claiming NN. Please note that this film was released 3 years ago. Most official film websites are only active for about 6 months to a year, less if the film isn't particularly popular or successful, neither of which are criteria for notability. 23skidoo (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - has notable actors and is part of a notable franchise. Direct-to-video may sometimes correlate with non-notability, but it does not create it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song)
- Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This individual song does not meet WP:MUSIC for individual songs, even if by a notable musical group. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The album Scouting for Girls (album) contains two singles which have been released and have placed on the charts. Heartbeat(Scouting for girls song), however, has not even been released as a single, and has no chart information suggesting individual notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate if it charts. (P.S. The page name is annoying me so I'm going to move it anyway.) anemone
│projectors 19:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiable info seems to exist yet on the song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, too early yet, not a crystal ball.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as the song does not meet any of the critera for WP:MUSIC and per WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe redirect the page to the album article for now and then it can be recreated at a more suitable time. AngelOfSadness talk 20:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merged & redirected to List of Pulp Fiction characters#Jules Winnfield --Stormie (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Jules Winnfield
Jules Winnfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Merge to currently nonexistent List of Pulp Fiction characters per discussion here.--The Dominator (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge as above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Not a deletion request. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project)
- LiWA Living Web Archives (Research Project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete as per WP:OR. This work is not published yet and still in developing/progressing phase. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The project will only launch next week. I've amended the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. 9 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No prejudice against recreation if and when the project becomes notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Project not yet launched. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The project started - also, the project website is live. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulaudondek2 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Several of the deletion arguments appear to me spurious; original research does not apply here, and there is no necessity for biographical articles for academics. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Luciano Canepari
- Luciano Canepari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete as per WP:OR and WP:BIO. It seems that people are getting interested to promote their research on WP which is really unfortunate. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I do intend promote my teacher'e research and it isn't unfortunate at all, since it only let ideas to travel faster; this is a particular subject where instead too often news travels very slowly. -- gfl87
- (Note: e-mail address removed) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks for your comment. With due respect to your work, I have to say that Wikipedia doesn't support Original Research and such article is considered as candidate for deletion. Please have a look at this page - WP:OR. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete I've added a bibliography section, but I'm not finding a lot of notability in a gsearch. However, this may be something that needs references from linguistic journals that aren't online. (And I'm not a big fan of AfDs started 3 minutes after creation of the article. Seems kind of bitey). --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies -- I only looked at the history for this capitalization, not for any other capitalizations.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Well it's a clear case of WP:OR violation and creator himself also confessed. And there is no harm to go for AfD if it really fails on one of the main three core policies. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment on comment: actually the creator did not "confess" that this was original research; he stated that his aim was to make someone else's research more readily available. This is the very opposite of WP:OR. Since we're dealing with an academic WP:PROF is the touchstone, not WP:BIO. These two facts mean that the initial rationale given for deletion ("per WP:OR and WP:BIO") is not really applicable, but we might still consider whether the few secondary discussions of this research that have been found indicate that this professor is notable under WP:PROF. On that point I am still not offering an opinion, but I am increasingly concerned at the looseness with which short-hand references to quite detailed policies and guidelines are bandied about in AfD discussions. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep One of Canepari's books (Manuale di fonetica) was reviewed in the journal Language (published by the Linguistic Society of America) this month. It's true that canIPA isn't used much except by Canepari and his students, but he certainly isn't considered a crank. The style of the article needs to be improved (to be more grammatical and less uniformly laudatory), but I think Canepari and his work are notable enough to be worth mentioning. --Śiva (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- And some of his earlier books were reviewed in the Journal of the International Phonetic Association in the late 1980s or early 1990s. There were some negative comments toward his phonetic notation (e.g., too many hard-to-distinguish-between consonant symbols) and some positive ones (e.g., more detailed vowel transcription is useful). – ishwar (speak) 06:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment there's fairly detailed discussion of his system in Warren Shibles, "A Comparative Phonetics of Italian: toward a Standard IPA Transcription", Italica 71:4 (1994), pp. 548-566. (on jstor). I wouldn't feel competent to suggest whether or not this significantly adds to his notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; his book might be reviewed, but for a WP:BIO article, we need biographical sources, sources about him. This article doesn't even have the obligatory four newspaper mentions and self-written biography that most of these have.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment: still not giving an opinion on this article, but just commenting that I think with an academic it would be more useful to concentrating on WP:PROF than on WP:BIO. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's an article about a person, so we have to worry about WP:BIO. It's not like someone being a professor gives us carte blanche to forget about the libel laws and the rules about sourcing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- comment: I only started the article beginning from what someone wrote in the respective italian article; then the actual content is very very poor: how can you find it laudatory? If you can understand Italian, let's read the italian article: that could be laudatory... Any attempt to correct my English grammar is very kindly accepted!
Moreover if you think it's better to get it as a WP:PROF than as a WP:BIO, let's change the cathegory. I don't think to delete the article is a good idea, since it somehow gives some more about the subject & allows everyone to discover something new otherwise a little more difficult to find. I think it's a question of cultural openness. Indeed if someone wants to delete and redo better that page, feel free to do. -- Gfl87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfl87 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whatever we may want to call it we need some sources, some indication of notability. The review of the book seems highly relevant, and I just identified others of this & another book via WorldCat, though I havent looked to read them: Phonetica, 61, no. 1 (2004): 59-61, Language problems & language planning. 30, no. 2, (2006): 193. That's at least minimal notability. His books are fairly frequently held in the US for works of this nature (some in about 50 US libraries); the bibliography is incomplete--I added some but not all--most of the work was published in both English and Italian. Can anyone find if his works are widely used in courses? that's undoubted notability per WP:PROF. I added some bio details from the itWP--they would have been missed in copying the source code, since they are actually in a very clever template. DGG (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep per DGG's demonstration that subject meets WP:PROF, however minimally. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep per DGG. John254 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris Cotter
Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Attention: It seems that this article is being tagged twice. I am requesting moderators to resolve this problem by removing anyone (preferably my one as I tagged later). -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep valid stub, requires clean-up and not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- You better go and debate in appropriate place. You may notice that I have already requested admins to remove this nomination as it was tagged twice. Your post clearly shows your intention to post a keep comment on my nominations which is really unfortunate as we are here for the betterment of Wikipedia not for involving in text-war. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The dual notification and lack of link here has been fixed. [10]Pedro : Chat 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete non notable personalty on a small regional network. All the article is a rehash of the network website.76.180.29.38 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep/No Consensus to delete - . Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Oliyum oliyum
- Oliyum oliyum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete. Non-notable movie. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[Do not delete] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcubemax (talk • contribs) 16:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC) This is not a movie and was a much sought-after program in ints hey day. Ask any tamil person.
- Content is really misleading. Could you please explain or expand or add some citations at this article? Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
vcubemax: I think we can change the status of this article to Stub. Is the issue settled? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcubemax (talk • contribs) 21:18, 5 February 2008
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unsourced. Notability is unclear at best. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Commentary such as this blog entry leads me to believe the show may actually be notable. Considering that the article is very new, and English language sources for a Tamil show may be hard to find, I think that giving more time for sources to be found would be appropriate. I've tagged it as TV stub and tagged it as unreferenced. -- Whpq (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no notability established in sources. Sestertium (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep -- needs expanding and referencing, but could be salvaged and as a TV programme will probably be notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into X&Y. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What If (Coldplay song)
- What If (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unrefferenced article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete/Question - Has this song charted, anywhere? I can't find any evidence of such. It was released as a single, but I don't really see significant coverage for the song, just a one-sentence mention in articles about the album. So, without charting (assuming that's true) and no real coverage, I'd say delete per WP:MUSIC.Gwynand (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to X&Y, the album this song is from. Since it was released as a radio single in a few countries, it should be mentioned in the album's article. Bláthnaid 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree that it does not meet WP:MUSIC but am fine with a mention in the album's article. SorryGuy Talk 07:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cotter. This is a duplicate nom. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Chris Cotter
Article about a non notable person. NYYankee2684 (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Live 2003. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Moses (song)
Unreferenced article about a song, No indication of notability. No mention of chart performance, use in other media (film, TV, etc), or any awards. Rtphokie (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep A basic search shows the song seems notable froma notable band. Added some citations to it regarding the information presented.--Pmedema (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment No question that the band is notable, how does the song seem notable? A basic search turns up lots of hits to lyric sites and videos (not surprising from a notable band) but nothing that indicates that this song is notable enough to warrant an article. Has it charted anywhere? --Rtphokie (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Pmedema is wrong, the song itself has to be notable. Which it isn't. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Live 2003, the album this song is from. The article says that Chris Martin's son was named after this song, which according to this is correct. Bláthnaid 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Parachutes (album). Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
We Never Change (Coldplay song)
- We Never Change (Coldplay song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced orphaned article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect/merge to the album the song's for, as is standard practise with these types of articles.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Parachutes (album). The information in this article is original research. Bláthnaid 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Ladder to the Sun
- Ladder to the Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced 2 sentence article on a song. No indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete This song didn't make it onto an album, and I can't find any information about it beyond brief mentions. Bláthnaid 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete This is based on the lack of cited secondary sources to establish notability. I'm not persuaded that this should form a precedent for future aviation incidents and presence of secondary sources should be a sufficient test for them. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
AirAsia Flight 104
- AirAsia Flight 104 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A non-notable aviation incident, it's not an uncommon occurrence for an aircraft to skid off a runway. No deaths occurred. No long lasting repercussions for the aviation industry. Any news hits don't discuss the incident in such a way to give it long-lasting notability within WP guidelines. Russavia (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I looked for precedence in List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft and found Qantas Flight 1 which was an aviation incident where the airplane skidded off the runway and no deaths occurred.--Pmedema (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The first part of the reasoning is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. The second part, QF1 is a notable accident as it has been covered in depth by news media years after the incident and did have ramifications for the airline, such as the insistance on calling the accident an 'incident', spending millions of dollars repairing an aircraft which should have all rights been written off but not done so in order to protect their "no airframe loss" record in the jet era, having the aircraft sent to China to have repairs done, CASA blaming Qantas for the accident, etc, etc. All in all, QF1 is a very notable accident due to long-term media and literatury coverage. AirAsia Flight 104, however, sources which give it notability in context of the WP:AVIATION accident task force guidelines, and WP policies, can't be found. --Russavia (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My intention was not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it was that there was a precedence based on the argument of "airplane over shooting and no injuries" was a kind of a standard for the nom. My intention was more on the idea of common outcomes from AfD where if there is a common outcome (a Persuasive precedent)...then why not? As for one article being more notable then another, my opinion was that this was still an aircraft accident and see no issue with keeping it, not that it was any more notable then any other article. --Pmedema (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It actually is very uncommon for commercial aircrafts to skid off the runway. That's why the incidents are the subject of multiple secondary sources like this one. --Oakshade (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Runway over-runs may not be a regular occurence, but they are significantly more common than other, more serious, incidents. The article has no supporting material. There were no fatalities and only two injuries out of 116 people on board, and negligible effects to the airport's operation (4 delayed departures and 5 diverted arrivals is hardly huge). Wexcan (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to AirAsia, since it's suggested in the article that the timing of this, weeks before an IPO, affected the value of the stock. With thousands of takeoffs and landings worldwide, air accidents happen. There are aborted takeoffs, there are emergency landings, there are cases where the landing gear failed, there are blown tires, there are incidents of sudden turbulence where people were injured. Since each flight has a designation (Air____, Flight____), and there are reports made, even a minor accident involving an airplane will be more likely to end up in a database than, say, a bus plunging off of a road in South America, or a three car accident on a multi-lane highway. Not every accident is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. Also, articles must have reliable sources to attest to their notability for the articles to even remain on WP, and this one has absolutely no sources. Concur that it could be mentioned on Air Asia if reliables sources are found that tie it to the IPO somehow. - BillCJ (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom and comments by BillCJ. MilborneOne (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I fail to see any long term notability for the incident Corpx (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Move to Wikinews? Just a suggestion « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:24 2008 February 3 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Swallowed In The Sea
- Swallowed In The Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced one line article on a song, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to X&Y, the album this song is from. It is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to X&Y. The song is on the album and one will likely search for the song. Parable1991 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Up and go
Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7, no assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC and a search for sources turned up nothing useful. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I endorse this A7. No claim to notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Should have been a db-band. Does not meet WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jazzin' for Blue Jean and move the citation there. Tikiwont (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jazzin For Blue Jean
- Jazzin For Blue Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete as it fails at WP:Verifiability. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Could you please stop biting me? Concentrate on basic policies of WP. Show me a single source that verifies its claim. I will withdraw my nomination. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to Blue Jean. It's blindingly obvious that it should be merged instead of deleted or kept as a stand-alone article lacking independent notability or potential for expansion. A variant of a song is almost always covered in the article about the original song.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Jazzin For Blue Jean is not the title of an extended version of Blue Jean by David Bowie, it is the name given to a video Jazzin' for Blue Jean which contains the song Blue Jean. 82.11.54.83 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy redirect to Jazzin' for Blue Jean, a better article about the exact same topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
MailList Controller
- MailList Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete as it fails at WP:NOTE. Moreover, it seems that it is a clear case of violation WP:OR. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think its a clear case. I think the category is the right place for it. Please don't see this as offend: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions MM1973 (talk)
- Delete - more per WP:CORP, a commercial software product that makes no case for notability or even for significant difference from similar packages. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I read the article. What it said when I wrote this response was, MailList Controller sends personalized email messages to a group of recipients and includes functions for subscription management. It works like an ordinary mail client and requires a legimate email account to send newsletters to subscribers. This has no third party references to show notability, and doesn't say that it does anything you wouldn't expect an email list manager to do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: I guess "it does not more than you expect" (based on the description) would match all software products listed here. I tried to write the article from a neutral point of view. Articles in Category:Windows_software are more like a listing. Should I add links to third party software sites as reference? e.g. c|net download.com. Btw. I am bit shocked about your response and the whole discussion. After I reviewed the other articles in this category I thought that my article is not be so bad that it would require deletion. MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for this discussion is the notability of the software, not the way it was written. And you are free to nominate other articles you feel do not meet those criteria. Good sources to list are independent, reliable sources, that are not listings. So C|net editorial review would be a good source, but the description on C|net wouldn't be, as it is not independent. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Type in MailList Controller in the google search and you'll get 100.000 hits ... Should I move it to the stubs, so that I can improve it later - maybe this would be a good solution at this point? I think there is no reason to delete the article completely.
- It is not uncommon for software solutions to have large numbers of ghits, yet some might see it as a indication of notability in itself. To be comepltely sure, just fish out some of the aforementioned independent reliable sources. I didn't find any proper sources in the first three pages, but there are plenty of results to look into. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: I found it in the top 25 most popular Email downloads on download.com. At position 12, listed in the top25 downloads for 27 weeks. Source: http://www.download.com/3101-2158-0-1.html?tag=pop.software MM1973 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete failing WP:N. I had already prodded the article, should I see this AfD as a rejection of the prod? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Why should the article been deleted? I just checked the windows software category and found many other programs, some of them are totally unknown such as FileMatrix or Metapad or MailJet. This is the first article I contributed to Wiki and I thought this article has much more notability as some others. MM1970 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MM1973 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for taking time contributing to wikipedia. I don't think that this software meets the guidelines in WP:N. As you just indicated, there may be many other articles that don't meet this guideline. That doesn't mean that this article should be kept, but rather that we should take a good look at those other articles, and see if they do meet the criteria. WP:OSE is clearer on it than I am. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't want to offend, but I don't share your opinion. I am new to wiki and I saw that I should remove the prod tag, if I disagree with the proposed deletion. Is that the correct way? or should I add the under construction tag and try to improve the article? MM1973 —Preceding comment was added at 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- There are actualy 2 things happening simultanious here. There is a PROD tag, which you can remove. And there is this deletion discussion, which you can't remove. You are free to remove the prod tag, but not the AfD tag. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- First off, thank you for taking time contributing to wikipedia. I don't think that this software meets the guidelines in WP:N. As you just indicated, there may be many other articles that don't meet this guideline. That doesn't mean that this article should be kept, but rather that we should take a good look at those other articles, and see if they do meet the criteria. WP:OSE is clearer on it than I am. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Gamma Beta Chi
- Gamma Beta Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article has seen no growth in the past several months, in fact it was created by a drive-by user. Most of the content was removed as blatant copyvio. Google search for "gamma beta chi" only comes up with the "national" page, and a couple of tripod pages (no news articles). Justinm1978 (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:ORG. — Satori Son 15:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not notable per WP:ORG. BowChickaNeowNeow (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Zhang Shu-Hao
- Zhang Shu-Hao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This actor has been awarded the "Best Actor" "Golden Bell Award" in 2007. This award does not seem like a very important one, but is an award all the same. 8 Ghits for "Zhang Shu-Hao". All in all, I don't think this actor meets WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) withdrawn. It seems notability has been established within reason. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no such source that supports his awards and career. Fails at WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion, this entry should not be deleted. Golden Bell Awards is the most important award in Taiwan area. Its status is just like the Emmy Awards in Taiwan. He has beaten many older and more famous actors in Taiwan, and won the award at a young age of 19. Although he doesn't have many works now, he sure IS a promising young actor who is still active in Taiwanese Drama field.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drickchen (talk • contribs)
- I moved this here from the talk, and reckon it should be seen as a keep Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - if the status of the awards in Taiwan are what Drickchen states, then it should be kept for sure. matt91486 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I got 22,000 ghits for "張書豪," which is how you would expect most people to write about him. Remember, media coverage doesn't have to be in English. The Golden Bell awards are discussed at zh:金钟奖, and they seem significant. Rigadoun (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability has been established.Snake66 (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 12:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wanhoop
Delete as fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Provided references are also very poor. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Alyson hunter
- Alyson hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete as doesn't meet WP:BIO. Google search provides a clear idea that this person is not notable at all. Fails at WP:NOTE too. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 14:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep listing an article for deletion 4 minutes after creation seems very like a violation of WP:BITE. Catchpole (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:BITE is a behavioral guideline, not a policy. Yes, it is a good guideline, but has no bearing in regards to an AFD vote (although it's fine to be noted). Is your keep vote based only on BITE?Gwynand (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - With due respect to Catchpole's effort for keeping some articles that lacks on many major policies of WP, I want to say, of course WP:BITE is to encourage newcomers but that doesn't mean we'll start keeping low profiles articles. Newcomer may request for an article instead of creating one that doesn't meet WP core policies. And it is really unfortunate to receive your bites at almost each of my nominations in the name of supporting newcomers. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Her work is on display at the National Portrait Gallery [12] and Museum of London [13] and has been purchased by the UK Government [14]. Her work has been exhibited across 3 continents. [15]. The article requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Linking to notable things that she is/was involved with does not make someone notable. Please produce, independant, 3rd party reviews of her work, or news articles about her. If there are just links to the places her work was shown and her own resume, then she still comes no where near WP:NOTE.Gwynand (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Her work is on display at the National Portrait Gallery [12] and Museum of London [13] and has been purchased by the UK Government [14]. Her work has been exhibited across 3 continents. [15]. The article requires clean-up not deletion. Catchpole (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTE. If she is "now considered to be a major voice in modern poetry" as the article suggests, then some secondary sources would come up. There is nothing however, in a few different searches I did, including google news. Gwynand (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - As an artist, she has exhibited at Victoria & Albert Museum, ICA Gallery, Brooklyn Museum; she's in the collections of MoMA, National Portrait Gallery, Philadelphia Museum, amongst others. Satisfies notability. freshacconcispeaktome 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I've re-written and referenced the article, following Catchpole's excellent research. Hunter's most important period seems to be the 1970s and 1980s, and material dating from that time is often not on the internet unfortunately. Her presence in collections shows that she was seen as of note. I've omitted the poetry claim, as I can't find any validity for that. Tyrenius (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Feministart, nice work done on this article. Could you please add information on her achievement or invention? This article claims that she invented (with a polite tone as employed) an unusual technique of etching with a chemically modified photographic image. It would be really nice if you can provide a third party reference supporting this point. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The lead does not say she invented it (though she may have done - that is not clear in the ref, so is not claimed), only that she employed it. The ref says that she used it. "Employ" is a synonym for "use" simply on stylistic grounds and to minimise use of the original on copyvio grounds. Her use of the technique is already cited in the main text, which the lead summarises. The lead has now been ref'd as well. Tyrenius (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it meets WP:BIO now.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Article is sourced, indicates notability. Edward321 (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Current version satisfies WP:BIO on permanent collections alone. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per above. - Modernist (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Jim Rettew
Non-notable media/politics guy; seems to be WP:AUTO. Fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep would this guy be considered an "expert" in his field ? Corpx (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as the listed sources tend to suggest that he is a minor personality. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Northwood High School (Saltville, Virginia)
- Northwood High School (Saltville, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Stub of non-notable school. The references provided don't demonstrate notability. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:20, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)
- Keep (as contester of PROD). As I noted on the talk page, Google searches (incl. news and books) indicate non-trivial WP:RS coverage for the school, especially as Worthy High. The sources are out there, they need to be secured. High schools tend to be notable and this one has its own history and the natural history of its site going for it. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Look here for a listing of hits in google news under the search "Northwood High School". The school is the primary topic of many of the articles and references in hundreds of others. I'd say that this shows its been the subject of significant coverage by secondary sources and should be kept per WP:note and per complying with one of the primary points of the the proposed guidline of notability for schools. - Gwynand (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Hasn't it been decided that virtually all high schools are notable. RMHED (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Some editors have suggested that, but no, it hasn't been decided. The argument of all inclusion isn't a "just because" argument, but rather related to the notion that all highschools in fact meet wikipedia's threshold of notability, not that they should be the exception to the rule. I didn't strike out your vote, but it should technically be based on actual policy or reason.Gwynand (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and Response to Note I think user:Gwynand is referring to the De Facto consensus that high school articles are legitimate articles whereas most elementary or middles are not. As a Member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools I can attest to the persuasiveness of this agreement that holds up at every AfD discussion I have ever observed, formal guideline or no. As such this article should be kept. Zidel333 (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - we delete we something isn't sourceable not when, as here, it has plenty of available sources that meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. However, the article has meanwhile been moved to Oroluk Island and then replaced with completely different content including a different map and might be legit. So I'll delete and then restore the latest version only. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Frolik Island
- Frolik Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Obviously a hoax. The article claims that Frolik Island is an island of the Oroluk Atoll (Fed. States of Micronesia). There are in fact articles in other Wikipedias that claim the same (de, pl, es, ru, fr) but it seems that all these articles were written by the same author. The most detailled of these articles is the one in pl WP: pl:Frolik. There you can find a map of the Oroluk Atoll indicating the alleged precise position of Frolik Island. If you consult Google Earth, you will find a sort of a sand bank or reef there with roughly the same NE/SW orientation as the alleged island on the map but without any vegetation (and of course with no settlements at all). The whole Oroluk atoll has a population of 8 or 10 inhabitants which doesn't match with the almost 100 that are supposed to live on Frolik Island alone. Moreover, the map of the alleged Frolik Island matches perfectly with a mirrorred map of Nanumea Island in Tuvalu, several hundred kilometers away from Oroluk (see the comparison of the images on Talk:Frolik Island. Currently, there is an AfD discussion on de WP stating all these indications for a hoax. pl WP had already an AfD discussion which ended in keep; I suppose the main argument there was the reference of the Statistical Handbook of Micronesia, but on de WP some were supposing that the image of a page from that handbook which is displayed on the talk page of the polish article has been faked, too. --Proofreader (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Proofreader says it all, this is a hoax, no doubt whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Obvious hoax. Nominate the foreign-language ones, as well. The handbook page looks quite realistic, but, looking at it zoomed in in Microsoft Paint, it looks sort of like a fake. The user does appear to be here for purposes other than hoaxes, but this does look like a hoax. If someone provides sources that definitely aren't hoaxes, I may change my vote. Bart133 (t) (c) 17:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The German article has been deleted today, the article in pl WP has been changed into a redirect to the Oroluk Atoll. There are varying opinions in de WP whether the author deliberately faked the map and the census entry, or whether he just used these sources in good faith; but the probability that these sources provide genuine and accurate information seems to be very low, to put it mildly. And as to the other Wikipedias I want to second Bart; anyone who speaks Spanish, Russian or French should inform these Wikipedias. --Proofreader (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm willing to believe that the creator used them in good faith. Looking at their user page, they seem to have provided several accurate maps and related information. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The French version is up for deletion. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Sorry, but I'm "lost" my passwort, so I must to be "as an IP" ;-) : There is no island namend Frolik in an atoll. Proofreader has found the real map location: Nanumea. I've made therefore an article in the de.WP (see de:Nanumea-Atoll). Zollwurf --84.176.232.210 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Lack of evidence for notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
WWE Byte This!
- WWE Byte This! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:NOT#INTERNET. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of the webcast. Prod disputed with the claim that notable things happened on the webcast, which whether that's true or not there need to be reliable third-party sources. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — RoninBK T C 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Weekly part of WWE Programing. Had several notable programs and guests. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- And the reliable sources that attest to the notability of the webcast are...what exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Its original research to deem which episodes are "notable" and which are not. If you remove that section, there wont be much left. I'd suggest a merge+redirect Corpx (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - WWE's official website states it is "on hiatus" and therefore still may return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC) — 96.233.64.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Once again...RELIABLE SOURCES ARE REQUIRED. Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's be WP:CIVIL please. All-caps are often considered shouting, and highly unnecessary. -- RoninBK T C 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently a little shouting is necessary, since WP:RS doesn't seem to be getting through using my indoor voice. Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If WP:RS is the problem, why is deletion the solution? The article was tagged for additional citations for verification some time in December 2007. Are you that impatient for the citations to be coming through? Considering that there are articles on wikipedia that have been tagged for citations since 2005, I reckon you're being quite hasty with your trigger-happy approach. There are a lot of wrestling related websites on the internet. I'm sure someone somewhere can find some reliable references on the notability of those interview segments. Just give it some time. Keep. --Bardin (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:N are the problems. That some other article may or may not have a reference tag is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's quite relevant. WWE's official website, which I would call a reliable source, states it is on hiatus. There's no reason for the article itself to be deleted. Should it be cleaned up? Absolutely. It's strange how you're on a crusade to get an article which can easily be cleaned up deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- WWE's official website is not a reliable source for the article because it is not independent of the subject of the article. And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making false accusations about me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Being a primary source as WWE's offical website is does not mean it is unreliable. Of course secondary sources are prefered, but that does not mean we dismiss everything from the primary source just because it is closely associated with the site. — Save_Us † 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- It does not mean that it is unreliable, but it does mean that Wikipedia has special restrictions as to how it can be used. According to WP:V, primary sources can be used for certain situations, but the Notability guideline requires that secondary sources be used to establish notability. -- RoninBK T C 11:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Being a primary source as WWE's offical website is does not mean it is unreliable. Of course secondary sources are prefered, but that does not mean we dismiss everything from the primary source just because it is closely associated with the site. — Save_Us † 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- WWE's official website is not a reliable source for the article because it is not independent of the subject of the article. And I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making false accusations about me. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's quite relevant. WWE's official website, which I would call a reliable source, states it is on hiatus. There's no reason for the article itself to be deleted. Should it be cleaned up? Absolutely. It's strange how you're on a crusade to get an article which can easily be cleaned up deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.64.12 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:N are the problems. That some other article may or may not have a reference tag is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- If WP:RS is the problem, why is deletion the solution? The article was tagged for additional citations for verification some time in December 2007. Are you that impatient for the citations to be coming through? Considering that there are articles on wikipedia that have been tagged for citations since 2005, I reckon you're being quite hasty with your trigger-happy approach. There are a lot of wrestling related websites on the internet. I'm sure someone somewhere can find some reliable references on the notability of those interview segments. Just give it some time. Keep. --Bardin (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently a little shouting is necessary, since WP:RS doesn't seem to be getting through using my indoor voice. Otto4711 (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let's be WP:CIVIL please. All-caps are often considered shouting, and highly unnecessary. -- RoninBK T C 08:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Once again...RELIABLE SOURCES ARE REQUIRED. Otto4711 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The point is not whether the show is coming back or not, it is whether it is notable enough to include in Wikipedia. WWE.com is a primary source, so it doesn't prove the notability of the subject matter as much as a third party news source would. I've done a lot of searching in the past couple of days, and I couldn't find one reliable third party source, not even for the whole Lita/Matt Hardy episode, which I was sure would have been covered by someone. Some of the unreliable dirt-sheet type sites mention the web show, but nothing good enough to prove notability. Although, I won't object to future recreation when these issues are addressed. Nikki311 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep--There are several news stories in LexisNexis that cover the Byte This webcasts; also two hits on Google books. Somebody put a lot of work into this page and it is informative and passes the notability test. It needs better cites, not deletion. --Wageless (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The book "Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of ECW" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 229 of a 261-page book."Tommy Dreamer, on an edition of the WWE Internet radio show Byte This, said the Homecoming crew was leaching off ECW's name, which they did not own." The book "World Wrestling Insanity: The Decline And Fall of a Family Empire" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 83 of a 235-page book. "In her fourth-quarter conference call, shortly after Bill's Byte This! appearance, WWE CEO Linda McMahon called Bill a 'disappointment.'" These would be textbook examples of trivial refernces that do not establish notability (see note 3 in particular). I have no access to Lexis-Nexis but if the "sources" are in any way similar to these book "sources" then they do nothing to establish notability either. The WP:EFFORT that someone put into the article is not a valid argument for keeping it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you're right Otto that all the mainstream press and published book mentions are brief, which is why I noted them here on this page rather than incorporating them into the actual article. I have now included a quote from a press release in Business Wire because it's dated 1998, showing how early the webcast was produced, and I've changed the date in the chart. (I should add that there are other books, e.g., Scott Keith's Wrestling's One Ring Circus and Nicholas Sammond's Steel Chair to the Head--nice title, don't you agree?--that specifically mention Byte This!, as does Vince Russo's memoir Forgiven and Steve Austin's memoir The Stone Cold Truth. All these are to be found on Google books.) The notability of the webcast (called a "netcast" early on) is that it is, judging by these cites, an important source for the history of WWE, and that it was an early and significant milestone in webcasting. The main thing is that these print cites plus the web material lift this piece above the notability hurdle. Also I'm afraid I can't agree with you that the amount of labor someone devotes to an article is to be so casually dismissed in weighing the article's merits--anyone can see that there's a goodly amount of encyclopedic meat here in the "notable episodes" section that would be of interest to a person coming to Wikipedia in order to find out more about about the history of wrestling or webcasts or both. Finally, I have to observe that the Wikipedia essay to which you refer in citing WP:EFFORT offers this word to the wise: "[C]ountering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." ----Wageless (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The book "Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of ECW" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 229 of a 261-page book."Tommy Dreamer, on an edition of the WWE Internet radio show Byte This, said the Homecoming crew was leaching off ECW's name, which they did not own." The book "World Wrestling Insanity: The Decline And Fall of a Family Empire" mentions the webcast in a single sentence on page 83 of a 235-page book. "In her fourth-quarter conference call, shortly after Bill's Byte This! appearance, WWE CEO Linda McMahon called Bill a 'disappointment.'" These would be textbook examples of trivial refernces that do not establish notability (see note 3 in particular). I have no access to Lexis-Nexis but if the "sources" are in any way similar to these book "sources" then they do nothing to establish notability either. The WP:EFFORT that someone put into the article is not a valid argument for keeping it. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's a question... what would constitute a "reliable source"? This is a pro-wrestling article. It's going to be difficult to go find something from a major publication that would satisfy what Wikipedia considers reliable. I've found a couple of articles that at least bring up the Matt Hardy/Lita situation and the incident with The Heart Throbs. RedSoxFan3458 (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting point. WWE has traditionally held the press at arms length, and even the most respectable of pro-wrestling news outlets are often dismissed with the perjorative label of "dirt sheet." Problem is, virtually no one covered these webcasts except for these "dirt sheets". It pains me as a WWE fan, (then again, a lot of things pain me as a WWE fan...) Regardless, WP:Notability is an objective standard to be met. Since WWE is a primary source, it can only establish basic facts about the webcast, and cannot establish its notability. That would therefore mean that unless additional info surfaces soon... (double checks the nomination date...) REALLY soon, the information about specific episodes would have to go, and the rest would logically be merged back into WWE. That, or we have to come up with a determination about these so called "dirt sheets." -- RoninBK T C 10:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This program was a significant portion of WWE.com's viewing time while it was not on hiatus. Also, it still may return. Clay4president2 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- If it was so significant then there should be reliable sourcesd that discuss it. Are there? No? Oh. The fact that it may return is irrelevant. There still need to be reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, on the subject of reliable sources for a pro-wrestling article, please be objective and give your input on that part of the discussion that you skipped over.96.233.64.12 (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)RedSoxFan3458
- If it was so significant then there should be reliable sourcesd that discuss it. Are there? No? Oh. The fact that it may return is irrelevant. There still need to be reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Stavangerrenaissance
- Stavangerrenaissance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Sounds madeup or a hoax, can't find anything via Google on this cultural period. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Se norwegian wikipedia, and search for Stavangerrenessansen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengre (talk • contribs) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
See also: http://www.mander-organs.com/portfolio/stavanger.html --Hengre (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The title of this article is certainly a neologism in English. It might have been better off leaving the Norwegian untranslated; that would at least clue in readers that this is about Norway. The Norwegian article, no:Stavangerrenessansen, seems to be a passable stub that gives two sources. Norwegian is one of those languages you can sort of understand, if you shout a lot and wave your hands; the older source over there uses the Norwegian language title; and the other one appears to be a reliable article from a magazine about historical conservation. I suspect that this article ought to be merged somewhere: either to Stavanger#History, Stavanger Cathedral, or Gamle Stavanger. See also comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cartilagebaroque. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - and change title to "Stavanger Renaissance" (the long compound word looks strange to an English eye, which may be what aroused suspicions of a hoax). It's not a hoax (I've taken off the tag) - it's a more or less straight translation of the Norwegian article, and I think it's a reasonable stub, with some possibilities for development. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and move to the Norwegian title. Relata refero (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Cartilagebaroque
- Cartilagebaroque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No references to prove notability or, in fact, existance. Zero return for google hits suggests WP:HOAX JD554 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a hoax, search for bruskbarokk and you will get several pages on norwegian. I think that I would know this better than you! --Hengre (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you know better than me then you can edit the article to add verifiable references that prove notability to show it should stay. --JD554 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Assuming good faith, I doubt that this is a hoax. The title "Cartilagebaroque", a disconcerting neologism in English, is bound to provoke scepticism. More importantly, it fails to tell us that this is about a Norwegian style of art and architecture. I suspect that both this and the Stavangerrenaissance article, if sourceable, ought to be merged somewhere; either at Stavanger Cathedral or Stavanger#History. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. "bruskbarokk" does bring up a lot more ghits. Unfortunately I don't speak Norwegian so am unable to determine if means cartilagebaroque or not. If the merges can be properly sourced and referenced as you suggest I would be happy to withdraw the AfD. --JD554 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment it's not a hoax - I've taken the tag off. There is a reference in the Norwegian WP here, which gives an external reference. It looks better with the words separated to "Cartilage baroque" - I've done that in the article, but not in the title for fear of confusing the links to this AfD debate. Whether there is enough material for an article is another question - probably better merged as suggested above. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It seems that you may have forgot to remove the tag, so I removed it see here. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 03:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge with Stavangerrenaissance is my !vote, assuming that survives, as I hope it will. I have found one reference to this in English (actually for a 1639 pulpit at Kalvehave in Denmark) but I don't think there's really enough for a separate article. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge as above. As long as the above mentioned citation goes with it. --JD554 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as the concerns were resolved. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Canadian Girls in Training
- Canadian Girls in Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only link is it's own site. There are many church groups out there, this is not a notable one. This has also been orphaned for almost 2 years. Undeath (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. There is no indication as to its magnitude or wide-spread acceptance or notability. Racepacket (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep While the article as it stands doesn't support notability, I believe that it is notable and it could be improved to meet standards. A quick Google search provides additional information that could be included and referenced, including from the Canadian Encyclopedia and at least a couple of books. Content could also be added to the articles on the supporting organizations - the United and Presbyterian churches in Canada - that would eliminate its orphan status. I'll try to take a crack at improving it. Mlaffs (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to assert notability. Believing that it is notable and being notable are two different things. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't being clear; I should have said that by improving the article, it would demonstrate notability. I've done some work on it, including:
- adding more information
- wikifying it, so that it is not a dead-end
- adding a references section, including a link to the topic's article in The Canadian Encyclopedia
- linking to the article from other pages that already referenced the subject, so that it is no longer orphaned
- adding further external links
- Hoping that enough has been done to take another look. Mlaffs (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I wasn't being clear; I should have said that by improving the article, it would demonstrate notability. I've done some work on it, including:
- Keep More than adequately sourced. I beleive that sourcing, rather than notability, was the real issue, and that has been rectified. Played a significant role in Canadian society in its time. Agent 86 (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it contains plenty of sources; they just need to be made into inline citations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Map of poland
- Map of poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not Commons - we are encyclopedia, not a gallery -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as having no content whatsoever, A3.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pigman☿ 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Arno Tausch
This article gives a lengthy account of the subject's academic career, but nowhere does it mention other sources writing about the subject, as required by WP:N. I'm sure he is an important scholar in his field, but important is not the same thing as notable.
The article was written almost entirely by near-SPA User:RafaGS, whom the subject (as User:Arno.tausch) acknowledges is a personal colleague. I put a {{notable}} tag on the article a month ago, and the only response has been a long list of the subject's academic publications, which is not relevant to the WP:Notability issue. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment There is a little bit about him on google news, but it doesn't add up to much. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Provided information including positions held and published books is more than sufficient to justify his notability.Biophys (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I disagree, should all scholars who published books and held similar positions have their own article in Wikipedia for that merit alone? Rsazevedo msg 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Notability for an academic is the notability of his work, as judged by his colleagues. All scholars who have published enough academic books --books from reputable academic publishers that are published on the basis of peer-review by experts-- and that have thus have attained high academic positions should have articles in WP. That's like the criteria for authors, who become notable by publishing books; & athletes, who become notable by being judged by those in their field capable of competing at the highest level.
- In this case, the bulk of his career has not been in the academic world, and it's a little harder to judge. There will need to be a check for reviews. But what this article needs is a careful check for copyvio--the style is that of PR. Almost everything seems to be said twice at least. There's a lot of name dropping, now partly removed, including the names of the universities everyone he copublished with has been associated with. This extends to a sentence about a particularly distinguished figure he did not co-author anything with, and another about a really distinguished person who contributed an article to a book he edited. And a sentence with links to each of the countries his books have been published in. This linkfarm seems too slick to be the work of an amateur-- but not slick enough that we can't catch it: "22 countries around the globe " is a characteristic phase, familiar from many articles on corporations. But that's a matter of editing, which is being done. I can't really blame anyone who took a look at the article and immediately thought to delete it. DGG (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Just one quick glance at Google Books makes notability clear http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Arno+Tausch%22&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=np. (Mind meal (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC))
- Keep The endless debate about Arno Tausch is really absurd. Look at one of his most recent publications: Dutch University Press & Luxembourg Institute for European and International Studies, Arun Muralidhar & Serge Allegrezza (eds.) Reforming European Pension Systems, Rozenberg and Dutch University Press, Amsterdam, 2007. With contributions from: Jacques Drèze, Paul A. Samuelson (Nobel laureate in economics), Robert M. Solow (Nobel laureate in economics), Arun Muralidhar, Elsa Fornero, Onorato Castellino, Sergi Jiménex-Martín, Pedro Sainz de Baranda, Franco Modigliani (Nobel laureate in economics), Stéphane Hamayon, Florence Legros, Pierre Pestieau, Arno Tausch & Muriel Bouchet.
- You might have perhaps other criteria of notability. But rest assured. DGG says: "This extends to a sentence about a particularly distinguished figure he did not co-author anything with, and another about a really distinguished person who contributed an article to a book he edited".
- But Arno Tausch's contributions indeed are to be found in the company of such authors as Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Kimmo Kiljunen, Andre Gunder Frank, all well-known from the pages of Wikipedia. In the book "Globalization: critical perspectives" Gernot Kohler and Emilio Jose Chaves (editors). Huntington, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers, voila - you find these very articles by Samir Amin, Immanuel Wallerstein, Kimmo Kiljunen, Andre Gunder Frank, and - Arno Tausch and many others, a fact which DGG implicitly or explicitly denies.
- In Dar al Islam (2005), Tausch published contribitions by Pat Cox, the then President of the European Parliament, by Samir Amin, Johan Galtung, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Andre Gunder Frank, and Bruce Russett, the Dean Acheson Professor of International Relations at Yale University, all included and documented in Wikipedia's English language pages.
- To continue our journey into academic absurdistan. DGG says: "In this case, the bulk of his career has not been in the academic world, and it's a little harder to judge".
- But as the very Wikipedia article on "habilitation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habilitation explains (habilitation, please note, is a peculiarity of the academic system in many European countries), Tausch is under the Austrian University system a LIFELONG associate of the Institute of Political Science at Innsbruck University. He thus never left the academic world.
- Anton Pelinka, his long-time institute head and habilitation promotor, by the way is one of the most well-known political scientists in Europe, and was among others, the Joseph Alois Schumpeter professor at Harvard University. You find enough information about him, by the way, on the German page of Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Pelinka), not yet translated into English. Justice for the Austrian political scientist Arno Tausch also would imply to state here that Dieter Senghaas, one of the doyens of German political science (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Senghaas), drew from the works of Arno Tausch in his classics, which developed dependency theory in Germany:
- 1. 1977. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas 'Weltwirtschaftsordnung und Entwicklungspolitik' 1977, on "Die Grenzen der Wachstumstheorie")
- 2. 1986. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas and Ulrich Menzel 'Europas Entwicklung und die Dritte Welt' 1986, on "Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien")
- 3. 1988. edition suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Dieter Senghaas 'Konfliktformationen im internationalen System' 1988, on "Jenseits der Weltgesellschaftstheorien")
- It is also simply wrong to say that "[Tausch's] bulk of his career has not been in the academic world". Arno Tausch taught at the University of Hawaii and continues his teaching comittments at Austrian Universities, from 1977 right through to 2008. Tausch began his publishing as a student at the beginning of the 1970s, and earned is habilitation degree at Innsbruck University in 1988.
- That he joined the Austrian diplomatic service in 1992 and that he was the Counsellor for Labour and Migration at the Austrian Embassy in Warsaw, should not be an argument AGAINST his notability, in fact, it would be an argument in favour, just as his top-level ministerial career as statistician and foreign country analyst in in the European Union and International Affairs department of an Austrian Ministry ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_government) since his return to Austria in 1999, now in the rank of a Ministerial Counsellor. It is precisely his involvement in the analysis and publication programs of well-known foreign policy think tanks in countries like Luxembourg (the LIEIS Institute, see: http://www.ieis.lu/frames/outer.htm), Poland (PISM Institute - see http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/PISM) , and Turkey (the Ankam Institute and INSIGHT TURKEY http://www.insightturkey.com/is0603.htm), which even is an additional argument in favor of having a Wikipedia article about him. 4814 downloads for his book «Why Europe has to offer a better deal towards its Muslim communities. A quantitative analysis of open international data» at the jornal Entelequia, and his recent ranking among the top 5% authors of the RePEc Services over the past 12 months (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repec), should caution those who say that the article lacks justification. --RafaGS (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment People expressing positions regarding this article should please address their comments specifically to the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I will have time to say more tomorrow. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, the article was spammy listing everyone he had copublished with, complete with a link, and the people who had written chapters in books he edited and so on. that's not good article content. Of course, it doesnt necessarily make you non-notable, just causes people to look rather critically at the article. Being the professor of a student who is very notable can bring notability; being the student of a very notable professor does not. Every advisor has disappointing students. In the very nature of things, most students are less notable than their doctoral advisor. Being published by people who also publish good books is not necessarily notable--every publisher has better and worse titles. Teaching stints as an adjunct lecturer are not an academic career. We know what habilitation is -- it's the rough equivalent of a post-doc, except it applies in continental Europe in the humanities and social sciences as well as the sciences--its the intermediate step between a PhD and a job as an untenured assistant professor (or the various European equivalents). it's not a guarantee of a job, let alone tenure. I say what I said before: in spite of the best efforts of his supporters to exaggerate his importance to impress us, we will be objective and not reject it out of hand as would be a natural reaction, but recognize that he is after all sufficiently notable. Sufficient citations by colleagues does make you notable. That much is true--it shows you are regarded as a significant figure in the profession, and thats the criterion. Sufficiently, but just sufficiently.DGG (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom (hadn't actually said that yet). I don't care who he knows or how many books he has published. What I care about is the impact (i.e., notability) of his work upon his field. Arguments that would convince me include how widely his work has been cited, and whether he has been granted tenure at a major university (primarily the former). For his work that is political rather than academic, you need to show significant discussion of it by independent sources. RafaGS has had plenty of opportunity to provide such information, and has not done so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Comments indicate this is a borderline case and arguments either way aren't persuasive to me. Pigman☿ 18:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Herrmann
- Peter Herrmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article gives a lengthy account of the subject's academic career, but nowhere does it mention other sources writing about the subject, as required by WP:N. I'm sure he is an important scholar in his field, but important is not the same thing as notable.
The article was almost entirely written by User:Arno.tausch, a close professional colleague of the subject whose own article (Arno Tausch) I am also nominating for deletion. I put a {{notable}} tag on the article a month ago, and there has been no response. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. One should provide some external sources to justify his notability (e.g. articles about him; I do not know if citation index qualify). So far there is nothing to justify his notability.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough encyclopedic significance to justify having his article in Wikipedia. Rsazevedo msg 01:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep pending a check for reviews and copyvio. Another PR job, though he is apparently a little less distinguished than Tausch. The common factor might be the publisher. 17 books, but the most widely held one has only 106 US/Canada location--in a widely studied and popular field--this may not be as mediocre as it looks because they are books that would appeal mainly in Europe, which is not covered by WorldCat. More investigation needed. Reviews must be looked for. DGG (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nom (hadn't actually said that yet). After discussing the relevant issues with DGG, we agree that this is a borderline case, and I'm still inclined to delete. Notability for an academic is measured by the impact of his work upon his field. This is measured primarily by how widely cited his work has been, and also by various honors such as tenure or awards from major professional societies. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per DGG. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Agaskodo Teliverek
- Agaskodo Teliverek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Does not assert notability requirements of WP:BAND, and no reliable sources found. JERRY talk contribs 12:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep featured by drownedinsound.com and have played the BBC Electric Proms. [16] Catchpole (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm still not impressed. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. A Google search turns up at most 5 hits, a myspace and a couple blogs. No notability has been asserted, therefore, it should be deleted. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. per nom. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Boothe
Possible hoax future video game. No references that substantiate the existence of the game or any supposed "public outcry". Googling combinations of Boothe, game, and assassination, gets no relevant results, googling "Murphy Games" gets no relevant results. And anyway, WP not a crystal ball. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Google turns up nothing, almost certainly a hoax. If it's supposedly named after John Wilkes Booth, why is it spelled differently? faithless (speak) 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be a hoax, given the misspelling, the unlikely-looking box art, and the lack of sources regarding a supposedly controversial game. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete vain vanity in vain. Provided links are about JFK Reloaded, and supposed "box art" is an atrocious Photoshop hackbox. Throw this junk out. JuJube (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. Someoneanother 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Closer's note: The consensus here is for deletion as non-notable and in-universe with no evidence of significance in reliable, secondary sources that show real world impact. The injunction tag, IMHO, does not apply as it explicitly states that the injunction is related only to television characters and episodes, not all fictional topics. This is not a television related topic. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Brotherhood of Makuta
- Brotherhood of Makuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Original research essay about a non-notable fictional group of characters. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The article only shows postings and links to blogs from bionicle forums which are not reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
So you think direct connections with the author is still inaccurate, eh? 71.111.145.171 (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that the article never establishes outside and significant coverage and as such agree it fails WP:FICT, while also failing WP:N straight-up. SorryGuy Talk 21:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Closure of this AFD may be subject to restrictions imposed by ARBCOM, as described at: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision#Halt_to_activities. JERRY talk contribs 04:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable, no real-world context. (When plausible, as per the pending ArbCom case) ♠PMC♠ 19:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep- You do know that those "unreliable blogs" are run by the man who writes the story for Bionicle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.242.128 (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's precisely what makes them unreliable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep- You keep this up, you might as well do away with every non-notable thing in fiction. --BS01Swert (Talk) 19:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not just fictional topics - nothing non-notable should be on Wikipedia. Also, see WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Unlikely such sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Morbuzakh
Another contested prod Original research essay about a non-notable fictional plant monster. No real world context and all sources are primary. Ridernyc (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete agree with nom: this article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, which are not presented in this article. Dekisugi (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 04:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Rhotuka
Non-notable objects in the fictional bionicle universe. There is some minor real world context here but it's all original research that really should be in the bionicle article if anyone ever decides to rewrite all this from areal world perspective of these beiong a collectible toy line. Ridernyc (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FICT. Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. True that there are sources from bionicle book, but they are primary source which is not reliable. Dekisugi (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. As with the other nomination, this article fails to establish coverage as defined by WP:N. SorryGuy Talk 21:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures
- L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I made a Good faith attempt to try to find any secondary sources that even mention "L. Ron Hubbard" and "Classic Lectures". I looked in 2 different news archives, and Google Books, and found nothing. Even with a regular Google search, I'm only seeing 344 hits, some of which are copies of Wikipedia. The majority of the other hits are to Church of Scientology affiliated websites of one sort or another. After this searching, I have not been able to find any coverage whatsoever in any secondary sources that discuss the subject of this article. The only source cited in the article itself at present is to what seems to be an advertisement for the works sold by the Church of Scientology's Golden Era Productions. (The link itself is inaccessible at the moment.) Cirt (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard as it's a plausible (albeit unlikely) search. No independent notability. faithless (speak) 12:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to L. Ron Hubbard, see no real reason why the collection should have an article of its own. Rsazevedo msg 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I think a better test of notability in this instance would be the test for books, i.e. WP:BK. Much of Hubbard's work is not in books but in his taped lectures. The notability guideline does include an applicable exception that would apply here:
That can clearly apply here. --JustaHulk (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources."
- Um, yea, but no. See comments by the above users, re: "No independent notability." Hubbard has written lots of stuff, both science-fiction, and well, other things. Not all of it is notable, and the true test of that is whether one can find any reference at all to a work in any secondary sources that are not Hubbard's own work and not affiliated with Church of Scientology organizations. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I dispute your assertion that everything written by Hubbard is notable, as do other editors, above. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I do not have any other open AfDs. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Doesn't seem to exist per nominator, hence, not notable. Also, the title is unlikely to yield in search results, if any at all, very few. So no redirect is needed. And if we suppose this existed, does it really warrant an article to write about a certain compendium of some of his literature? I think not. And I disagree with that being applied here. While certainly some of Hubbard's literature is notable, this is not a specific book. So it's not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I get your point. Of course the series exists and you can just Google the term "L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures" to verify that. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- All right, it seems to exist.[17] Question remains then: is this notable enough to warrant an article? Has it been sold in large numbers, exposed to heavy media coverage, or anything of the kind? Is it not better to include this in a generic article covering Hubbard's work? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I get your point. Of course the series exists and you can just Google the term "L. Ron Hubbard Classic Lectures" to verify that. --JustaHulk (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Based on the web site for the series [18] it's just a repackaging, and they do not use the title of the article in any case. DGG (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Right now it reads like an advertisement, and states that "his lectures are now avalible"...but it really dosn't give any context outside of the fact that they exist. What was the impact of this spacific collection (not the lectures themselves, but this package). its kinda like making a seperate link for "diskworld by terry prattchet, the United states publications 1996 covers". oops, forgot to signCoffeepusher (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Indeed, how could I forget to mention that? A new title is released each month, and can be subscribed to like a record club, with subscribers receiving a special CD unavailable elsewhere entitled Org Board and Livingness. — Sounds very much like an advertisement indeed. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have not said why. Why do you think this article satisfies WP:NOTE? The Closing Admin usually is supposed to ignore comments which simply read like a "vote"... Cirt (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 arguments for deletion, concerning a failure to establish notability through the provision of reliable sources, are clear in this discussion: such sources are not provided. Anthøny 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thomas O'Grady
- Thomas O'Grady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Already deleted once and again created. Nominating it for Deletion as it looks like a political add. It fails at WP:BIO as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. He is the mayor of a small town, and is a candidate to become a candidate for Congress. This doesn't meet WP:BIO. AecisBrievenbus 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Perhaps salt if this article is deleted again with no opposition I suppose that might be a little extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have modified the page per the request above from Niaz.--Avfwiki (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have added references as requested.--Avfwiki (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Wow, you all think 34,000 people is a little town? I'm a bit surprised by your demands here. Greswik (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:BIO: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" Rsazevedo msg 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Jeepers. Notable per wp:n, significant as Kucinich opponent, constellation of news mentions in Lexis/Nexis.--Wageless (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, ample precedent on small-town mayors. Noble Sponge (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Coverage by reliable third party sources is cited in the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
John Hagen
Once again, minor recurring character on CSI: Miami who is now dead on the show. Article is only a synopsis of major plot lines he was involved in. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo msg 00:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect and thanks a ton for the spoiler, Redfarmer. Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-admin). RMHED (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Nederwiet
Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. A Google search indicates notability, however the article should be properly sourced. Rsazevedo msg 00:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, and in case you wonder what the article is about: a type of marijuana. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have added references and flagged for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep References now properly sourced with {{cite web}} and {{cite journal}}. Fully functional stub now. -- RoninBK T C 18:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep with plenty of great sources. This article is in a totally different condition from when it was nominated. нмŵוτнτ 18:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Duetwo
This article was tagged for speedy. A general check reveals some notability of the duo so whilst article needs attention it appears this article could meet WP:N. Views are sought from interested music/Japanese editors. --VS talk 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Googling suggests a degree of notability, however, further referencing would assist the resolution of this matter. WWGB (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep; the group is notable but that article will need some cleanup. Chubbles (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. Agreeing with WWGB, further referencing would be extremely welcome. Rsazevedo msg 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This group are well known in Japan and occasionally perform abroad. There seems to have been some editing to improve it and keep to the facts. Ongaku-ya msg 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Marisol Delko
- Marisol Delko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable recurring character in CSI: Miami. Appeared sporadically for one season as a love interest to Horatio who was killed off immediately after they were married, so little to no chance she'll ever be back. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to minor characters per what just occurred with Peyton Driscoll Travellingcari (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as happened with/is happening with Michael Keppler.Red Fiona (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mud Bite
Article does not assert notability -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete according to a Google search[19], "mud bite" is a fishing term. I could find no references supporting the definition given. -Verdatum (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Article is not properly sourced, and references to it in Google are very sparse. Rsazevedo msg 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Bango (cannabis)
- Bango (cannabis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article makes no claims of notability.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The way I see it, the notability of a type of cannabis has to be approached in a different way as from, say, a biographical article. The fact that it's used in more than one country is something of a claim to notability. Googling for the phrase, I found several sources that looked reliable discussing this. Maybe it could be merged somewhere - it really needs attention from an expert on the subject - but certainly not an outright delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to this Google books search, the term appears to be notably used. However, "Bango (cannabis)" is an implausible search term, so a redirect is not at all useful. User:Dorftrottel 13:21, January 29, 2008
- Nice find on the books search, I've added an {{expert}} template. It is an implausible search term, but Bango is a dab page. -- RoninBK T C 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wrt redir: I meant that redirecting would not be useful. Still not sure whether anything on bango shouldn't better be merged into Cannabis (drug). User:Dorftrottel 16:54, January 29, 2008
- Nice find on the books search, I've added an {{expert}} template. It is an implausible search term, but Bango is a dab page. -- RoninBK T C 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Also found sources establishing its reliability. Article should be expanded though. Rsazevedo msg 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepCould possibly be merged into a page such as "Glossary of cannabis terms" or "Types of Cannabis plant". Rich Farmbrough, 13:36 30 January 2008 (GMT).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Maxine Valera
- Maxine Valera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Although she has been on the show for years, the article admits there is little to know about her and is basically just a recap of major plot lines she's been involved in. Fails WP: FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo msg 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- support. Editus Reloaded (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Minor characters in CSI: Miami, taking into account related and preceding AfD nominations Tikiwont (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter Elliott (CSI: Miami)
- Peter Elliott (CSI: Miami) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable recurring character on CSI: Miami. Little chance to be expanded beyond current form, which is just a recap of his appearances on the show. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Miami if it is good enough for Michael Keppler it should be good enough for this character --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to minor characters per what just occurred with Peyton Driscoll Travellingcari (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as wholly unreferenced w/o evidence of notability. Do not support merge save for into the apropos episodes in which this character appears, provided they themselves meet muster. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Paris Cowan-Hall
- Paris Cowan-Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Player has not made an appearance in a professional football league Jimbo[online] 09:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:BIO as hasn't played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails [{WP:BIO]] as Number 57 says. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete has not played in a fully professional league, if ever does do so, the article can be restored. King of the NorthEast 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. Tikiwont (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Michael Keppler
- Michael Keppler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for four episodes while William Petersen was gone. Does not meet WP:FICT and probably never will since his character was killed off in his final appearance. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally prefer someone merged and redirected the thing to CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect to Minor_characters_in_CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation then. He really would not fit with the characters on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's a bit of an awkward character because he's not major enough to have his own article, but he's a little too major for just a two line, 'was in episodes X, and was played by Liev Schreiber'.Red Fiona (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's against the current consensus of the major contributors on what should be on that page. The page at one time became overly messy because every recurring character, which CSI has a lot of, were listed on the main page. Redfarmer (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment He did get a major character arc in those four episodes, and CSI:_Crime_Scene_Investigation#Past main characters would seem to be the best place for him. Or, maybe, having read the page, expand the section under notable guest stars so the section for Keppler contains the useful information for the characterRed Fiona (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- He's not a past main character, though. He appeared in four episodes of the show. The characters in that section were regulars on the show spanning multiple seasons. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. It would be great to get rid of the "Guest stars" section from the main article, merging it (with Keppler) into Minor characters would be perfect.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC) - Merge and redirect to Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation seems like a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sin Harvest (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Travellingcari (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to minor characters per Peyton Driscoll. Good idea, User:Redfarmer to try and have the same standards for the minors across all three CSIs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by travellingcari (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 January 2008
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation
- Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article was posted for speedy deletion as being about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Article does not appear to meet verifiability guidelines --VS talk 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The sources look a bit obscure and a Google search of 'Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation' comes up with no references for this organisation [20] --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No coverage for this "event" ? Corpx (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Corpx, I have added coverage of the event from the United Nations, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Washington Post, and the Christian Post. I will add more. User:Paulalexander
- Comment Those references make no mention of 'Evangelicals for National Security Through International Cooperation'. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Nuetral and Comment The titles of the references provided do not need to mention the name of this compact. Nick, were you able to read the full articles to determine if they are inappropriate references? A title search of Tikkun does show that that reference exists. I can't read the article because I do not subscribe to Tikkun; nonetheless, my lack of access to the magazine does not make the reference invalid. Unless it can be shown that the references are spurious, I'm going to assume good faith and suggest that they are not. However, I'm not sure that the two refs provided are enough to establish more than borderline notability,and I do think that the article can use some cleanup to get it beyond the state of appearing to be an advertising platform for ENSTIC.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind; I was looking at the reflist, not the reflinks imbedded in the article. I also see that the two reflist articles and ENSTIC were authored by the same person. The imbedded references seem to point to the National Association of Evangelicals not the ENSTIC. Delete (possibly merging some information with NAE) until some concrete mention of ENSTIC turns up.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
King & Wood
It does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. It has been speedy deleted twice, so I bring it up here for good. It has now some sources, they still do not meet the guidelines. The link to CNN interview of Art of Life is a trivial mentioning of the company. Dekisugi (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Only reason I would see to keep would be that they're the largest in China, but if that's unsubstantiated, then delete. Corpx (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This company is stated to be the largest law firm in China... the largest country in the world. The PetroChina deal they worked on was also record breaking. I think its important enough. InAnns (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- — InAnns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I think this is notable enough, the company's work has clearly had an economic impact. The Beijing olympic are a catalyst for social change in China, the company is playing a role in it. Icerman (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- — Icerman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - I found something wrong in the article. The editor forgot to put {{reflist}} or <references/> command. I put it there so references are shown up now. However, all links that can be verified there describe PetroChina, not the subject in question. Therefore I still stand by my delete opinion though references are now provided. Dekisugi (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I went ahead and did some searching but could not find any reliable or significant coverage of this firm and as such feel that it fails WP:CORP. SorryGuy Talk 02:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Promotional article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you all for your advice on how I can improve the entry I made. As a first time writer on Wikipedia I am trying to learn what makes a good post. I have made (what I feel) are some improvements, and would appreciate your feedback. Any suggestion of how it can be improved are much appreciated.
- Comment The firm's real name is actually King & Wood PRC LAWYERS. A google search of such shows reveals a lot of information. dunx209 11:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- — dunx209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.90 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin. I found something is strange with the keep voters. I suspect they are the same user (sockpuppets). The last comment given by InAnn a.k.a dunx209 was written by ChinaLaw, see [21]. Dekisugi (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I reverted this keep vote from a user because it broke the template, but for what it's worth, that vote was their only contribution. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
List of sports similar to baseball
- List of sports similar to baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced list of things someone thinks are related to some other thing, also mixes real and fictioonal. WP:NOT#INFO. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, too loosely defined. If a person wanted to, they could theoretically justify the inclusion of any sport on this list which used a ball as being "similar" to baseball. It has the potential to be a dumping ground for OR. Redfarmer (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT -Ravichandar 11:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Too loosely defined, and it's mostly original research to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Violates WP:NOR at the very least and arguably other policies as well.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into the see also section of baseball, though delete would be fine as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete violates WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. What criteria determined which sports are "similar" to baseball? Rsazevedo msg 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteWikify per below. This can be sourced and improved, but it would take some time. Not that the topic isn't encyclopedic-- the Oxford University Press did a reference book on the sports of the world, and all these are on there-- (classified as "bat and ball games", except for kickball) but this is one of those useless "indiscriminate lists" with nothing but blue-links. While a detailed explanation, of how rounders and baseball compare and contrast, is too much information for an article, a few sentences wouldn't hurt. This one grounds out. Mandsford (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)- Comment:Appears to be WP:OR. The Phrase "similar to baseball" itself is loosely defined and personal opinion. There may be people who may feel that it is not so. -Ravichandar 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note to closing administrator. If the consensus is delete, please move it to my user space. I don't have time to provide any references right now but may consider working on this in the future. (I am the creator of this article but not the sole author). —siroχo 08:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Ashfield (webcomic)
- Ashfield (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was originally submitted for CSD. There's enough information and sources that I was uncomfortable deleting it without an AfD. A search of the substantial number of Ghits I found gave me a lot of background information but no assertion of notability. Trusilver 07:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable. The article doesn't assert notability in any way, and the best I could find was a passing mention in a salon.com piece on webcomics, and the fact that it was nominated (but didn't win) a 2002 Web Cartoonist's Choice Award for "Best Gag Comic" -- and those are cartoonist nominated and voted awards, at that. Jfire (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for its non-notability. Had a hard time finding any related info on Google. Rsazevedo msg 23:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
List of Emacs commands
- List of Emacs commands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
WP:NOT#MANUAL. A handful commands of thousands. Contested prod. SaberExcalibur! 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Achromatic (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I was going to link to WP:NOT#HOWTO but nom already beat me to it :( Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and other comments that WP is not a manual book. Suggest: move to wikisource. Dekisugi (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a guide.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- C-z Nothing that needs to be in an encyclopedia... -- RoninBK T C 14:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete everyone here has the same justification, for good reason. -Verdatum (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I realize wikipedia is not a manual. However, as the nominator said, this is a handful of commands out of thousands. Thus it does not fit the description of a manual, nor an indiscriminate list. It is a helpful and useful page, which is why I created it. Perhaps it should be merged with emacs? Fresheneesz (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's indescriminate because it doesn't say which commands should be in this list and which should not. Therefore, with other contributors, this list could become complete; thousands of commands, serving no benefit, as the information is already found on other, more appropriate locations. The external links listed in the emacs article for example, are particularly good...including an emacs wiki :) -Verdatum (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not an encyclopedia article and no potential to become one. --Stormie (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Axe of the Dwarvish Lords
- Axe of the Dwarvish Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable roleplaying game weapon. Transwiki to the DND Wikia. Jfire (talk) 07:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and transwiki. No independent sources so fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's one RPGnet review now, added with significant rewriting - and the review's definitely not a love-fest. Don't know how much that counts as independent, but it seems like a fair review to me. 207.229.140.148 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep,
or Redirect to either List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. "Axe of the Dwarvish Lords" is, like the Rod of Seven Parts, both the name of an artifact and the name of a module centered around the item. The article needs to be edited to reflect that fact. BOZ (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)- Changing my vote to straight-up Keep, thanks to all the changes that have been made in the past few days. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Your theatrical change of vote fools no one: you created this article in the first place, and your vote was always going to be a keep. None of the sources that have been added are reliable, and notability is still unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Touchy? You'll notice I haven't added anything to the article recently. Honestly, when this AFD started I figured it would be a goner and no one would care enough to do anything for it which is the main reason I said anything about redirecting, but obviously I was proven wrong - a great deal of effort has gone into this article in an attempt to save it, and you'll see me thanking people all over the place in this discussion because of it. I applaud their efforts, even if you're worried that this may be one more AFD that you'll lose. (And if you're not worried, then why comment at all?) If people honestly believe that my vote was "always going to be a keep", then the closing admin will see through anything I have to say and discount my opinion, and if not then I will be afforded the same respect that any other editor deserves. Maybe one day, I'm hoping and praying, you will learn that just because Gavin says it is so, does not mean it is so. My experiences with you over the last few months have not borne that out yet, but only time will tell. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have awarded you the Barnstar of Recovery for your excellent theatrical performance. If you give up spamming articles with no content, context, analysis or evidence of notability, such as this one, I am sure you will have promising future on the stage.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Touchy? You'll notice I haven't added anything to the article recently. Honestly, when this AFD started I figured it would be a goner and no one would care enough to do anything for it which is the main reason I said anything about redirecting, but obviously I was proven wrong - a great deal of effort has gone into this article in an attempt to save it, and you'll see me thanking people all over the place in this discussion because of it. I applaud their efforts, even if you're worried that this may be one more AFD that you'll lose. (And if you're not worried, then why comment at all?) If people honestly believe that my vote was "always going to be a keep", then the closing admin will see through anything I have to say and discount my opinion, and if not then I will be afforded the same respect that any other editor deserves. Maybe one day, I'm hoping and praying, you will learn that just because Gavin says it is so, does not mean it is so. My experiences with you over the last few months have not borne that out yet, but only time will tell. BOZ (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Your theatrical change of vote fools no one: you created this article in the first place, and your vote was always going to be a keep. None of the sources that have been added are reliable, and notability is still unproven. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Changing my vote to straight-up Keep, thanks to all the changes that have been made in the past few days. BOZ (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, does not seem to be notable as it's own article and is well represented in the list. Perhaps merge some fo the main information to the list - Dumelow (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment/Suggestion Someone needs to figure out if this should be the artifact, the module or both. Frankly I'd go with a disambiguation page, and point to the list of artifact and the list of modules (at least until someone writes an article on the module which likely meets WP:N.). Hobit (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seconding Hobit's suggestion: merge to two different pages and turn this into disambiguation. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are you going to address the notability concerns? Jfire (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- By no longer having a separate article dedicated to the subject. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- One thing it should definitely not be is split - there's just not anywhere near enough notability to sustain them as separate items. BOZ (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a disambig page, either. I think we should simply redirect to one or the other, and then make sure that the redirect target is well wikilinked to the other instance. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- How are you going to address the notability concerns? Jfire (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules or List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo msg 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons modules, nothing here worth merging (I recommend that merge target over List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as at least a D&D module is an actual real-world publication, not a fictional item of dubious encyclopedic notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons rather than modules because artifact came first and appears outside the module. I'm not too fussed though, as we cannot guess which "Axe" readers will be searching for. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per BOZ.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per BOZ. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question Anyone willing to fix this up? The module has no problems meeting notability requirements IMO, but the artifact I'm less sure of. BOZ, if you want to keep them together, the article needs some work... Hobit (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep One of the oldest mentioned artifacts in the original D&D system (goes back to the Eldridge Wizardry supplement, per Jon Pickens and the Encyclopedia Magica). I'll try to define this a bit. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Does the intro fix help? BusterD (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It does look a whole lot better at least, thanks. :) As far as how much that will matter... we'll see, I guess. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Artifacts are tough to destroy/delete anyway. Gotta throw it into the volcano in which it was made, or break it with a footstep of the humble ant (per DMG). I was wondering how anybody was ever going to close this AfD (Axe for Deletion) discussion without so much as a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. (Does English Wikipedia even have an admin who can cast 9th level wizard spells? Maybe German Wikipedia...) BusterD (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed the tags for issues which have been addressed. Since notability was listed in nom for deletion, I'll not remove that until this discussion is closed, one way or the other. BusterD (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Artifacts are tough to destroy/delete anyway. Gotta throw it into the volcano in which it was made, or break it with a footstep of the humble ant (per DMG). I was wondering how anybody was ever going to close this AfD (Axe for Deletion) discussion without so much as a Mordenkainen's Disjunction. (Does English Wikipedia even have an admin who can cast 9th level wizard spells? Maybe German Wikipedia...) BusterD (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It does look a whole lot better at least, thanks. :) As far as how much that will matter... we'll see, I guess. BOZ (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is a sufficient amount of material that can be included in the article as it is well-known in D&D circles since practically its beginning. The One Ring from The Lord of the Rings has its own page along similar reasoning. « D. Trebbien (talk) 22:26 2008 February 3 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, keeping info for GPDL reasons. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I was going to say Merge but there seems to be enough information to support a full article, and there is at least one reliable secondary source. --Smcmillan (talk) 07:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fictional artifact outside of Dungeons & Dragons. Six of the seven sources cited originate from the game publishers (TSR and Wizards of the Coast) except one self-published review, which was written by a S. John Ross who has worked for the publishers. The majority of the article is plot summary with a heavy in-universe perspective that fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF, which means that this article falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note that citation of S. John Ross for review of the adventure module Axe of the Dwarvish Lords cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source, since it deals with the source material (an adventure module or book of the same name). Assertions that this souce is evidence of notability is misleading, since the reference to the fictional axe itself is trivial in nature. As this fictional artifact only receives a passing mention in the review, the artifact still fails WP:FICT. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment So by your reasoning the only reliable secondary sources in the featured article Cortana are those that specifically focus on the character of Cortana, not the Halo games? And since those sources are on websites that you would probably (given previous arguments of yours) classify as "fansites," they aren't reliable either. I guess you should go slap a notability tag on Cortana then. Why don't you go do that?--Smcmillan (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect. Non-notable; mention in List of D&D Axes or a list of your choice. Second choice; throw it into The Cracks of Doom. --Jack Merridew 14:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it is a notable fictitious artifact with a long history of publication, and third-party sources exist. Merging it into List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, while a sensible option at first glance, would be counterproductive on account of the length of the article and the amount of information it contains. Typically, subsections this long are split off from articles, rather than merged into them. This is long enough to warrant a page, and well written up, with the proper out-of-universe perspective. Freederick (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Adequate notability Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There is one reliable enough secondary source and enough information for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Third-party sources exist. - Poisonink (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete *facepalms*
- B-b-but the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords is notable! It is the most powerchful weaponth inth all of the landth of Golandia! It was craftedth by the mighty dwarventh warrior-god, Thalazarth, in the fairy caves of Antioch! It was used by the legendary hero, Zandara, in the destruction of the mighty red pearl dragon!
- *rolls 1d20 and casts "Delete stupid article."* ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- In order to save my colleague editor from permanent embarrassment, I will on his request delete the above "argument" DGG (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- But, it was the best argument yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is the best delete argument here; gets right to the point. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- To paraphrase Mark Antony, "...he has me exact." BusterD (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is the best delete argument here; gets right to the point. --Jack Merridew 08:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- But, it was the best argument yet. ;) BOZ (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- In order to save my colleague editor from permanent embarrassment, I will on his request delete the above "argument" DGG (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Warning Any non-dwarf who holds the axe loses some of their vitality — I just hope that editing this article doesn't count as holding this axe; might be best to delete this article to avoid any further risk to non-dwarf wikipedians. --Jack Merridew 12:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons - no independant sources to establish notability beyond D&D. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article can be improved, but it has sufficient references to remain a distinct article. And as an aside, the trolling of BOZ's user talk page with a sarcastic barnstar w/ regards to this article was inappropriate.Shemeska (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If you are not going to take the process here seriously then don’t participate. The Axe my not be the best article here, it may even be worthy of deletion, but the condescending attitudes of some editors here point are more to WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else they are trying say. Web Warlock (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - the article has been improved over the course of the last few days and certainly more references could be found. Besides WP:WAF has never been a reason to delete an article. I would also accept a redirect but which article would be the best Modules or Artifacts? Web Warlock (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Per Webwarlock. The only deletion reason given was "non-notable", and the article asserts notability and includes references. Rray (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Colonel Warden. Iquander (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Considerable efforts have been spent on rewriting the article to make it less biased; unfortunately, the issue raised by the AfD nominator – non-notability – has not been addressed, i.e no evidence was given by "keep" voters to establish the notability of the subject. External links existing in the article are either primary or closely affiliated websites. --PeaceNT (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Plug board (internet)
- Plug board (internet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Concerns have been raised via e-mail to the Foundation that the subject of this article may not concern a notable subject and that it constitutes an advertisement. Please remember to give justification and not just a "vote". Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Has WP:SPAM written all over it. Not enough third-party sources, the only external link is to the company itself. Rsazevedo msg 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Article has been re-written to give a less biased view. External links to other websites offering different plugboard scripts, as well as to plugsites have also been added. Like other articles it informs new users to its capabilities, as well as correct etiquette on how to use it. Chrisdb89 msg 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I've seen it used in many places and while obviously the main use of the script is for advertising, the article itself (in its current form) does not resemble an advertisement. Notable enough to keep. Kixy (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My Name Is Khan
- My Name Is Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Future plans, see WP:CRYSTAL. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Moved to AfD for a closer look after turning down a CSD request --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Future blockbuster attributed, but lacks sources and just about everything else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep- It seems this project has been confirmed and discussed in the news ([22] [23] [24] [25]), which means the speculation is verifiable and thus doesn't qualify as WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, the stars are clearly notable, to the point where they have their own (well-sourced) articles, which means this is not exactly a small independent film. The article is poorly written in its current state, but that's not a good reason to push for deletion. --jonny-mt 07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)- Ah. I didn't realize that WP:MOVIE contains an explicit clause relating to future films. I wasn't able to find any sources indicating that filming has begun (the closest I found was a couple of blogs mentioning Augst 2008 as the start of filming), so it fails WP:NFF after all. However, I stand by my comments about the article not being a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (which is defined as unverifiable speculation), and agree with the suggestions that the existing content be merged to either the director's article or the male lead's article. After all, the latter was stopped in an airport because his name is Khan. --jonny-mt 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per jonny-mt but cleanup. I've added some clean-up tags to the article to assist. Redfarmer (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete In its current state, the article reads as a publicist's promotional blurb. Perhaps it was moved to Afd too soon, but as it stands, it definitely needs sourcing and cites. Maybe it could be put back and fixed? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
FIXEDTaken the links provided by jonny-mt, and used those to create a sourced, wikified, and npov stub. Editors, please revisit your !votes -- RoninBK T C 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)- Delete per the notability guidelines for future films: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Just because a project is covered does not mean it is at all guaranteed to be a full-fledged film article. I suggest mentioning the project on the director's article until filming actually begins, where there would be actual film-based content such as production, release, box office performance, critical reaction, accolades, etc. As it stands, the project has not crossed the threshold into having a future with these details. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Any verifiable information should be placed at the director's article. The film article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge When this article first appeared on the new pages list, I sd tagged it; Shira, sensing some potential in it, moved it here. As it stands, the article has been improved significantly and now includes references, context, and notability. However, as several others have remarked, it still flies in the face of WP:Crystal. Why not temporarily merge it with the director's article as suggested? Its current improved state would be a fine addition to that article, and it can easily be moved into real article status once the movie goes public and generates press reviews to support it further. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:NFF is completely clear - the article should not exist until a reliable source confirms that the production has already started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Could be moved to the director's page in the meantime. Rsazevedo msg 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - ARS tagging won't help, the film hasn't started production yet. See WP:NFF, and re-create if production commences. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to newly-created category Category:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance. Added this category to appropriate entries that were on this list. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
List of nonviolence scholars and leaders
- List of nonviolence scholars and leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
As is, with only wikilinks and a couple sections, this would be much better as a category. Mr.Z-man 06:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Conditional Keep: Without any references it could be regarded as WP:OR. The article need not be replaced with a category. There are lists by communities, affiliations,etc. But the article needs to be bettered if at all it is to be kept. -Ravichandar 11:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replaced with a category, agreeing with Mr.Z-man. As it is, it could serve its purpose in the same way (or even better) as a category. Rsazevedo msg 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Categorise and Delete - a category would be a better way to link the information together. Guest9999 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Holistic Information Security Practitioner
- Holistic Information Security Practitioner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
NN security certification, with no references, with one press release press hit in the entire NEWS.GOOGLE.COM archive --- "certification" in this case provided by an NN security consultancy in Georgia. --- tqbf 05:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep or refactor - It seems that this certification is indeed real and is drawing a bit of attention in the U.K. While I'm not exactly prepared to say that this article should absolutely be kept based on this one news piece alone, I might argue that it would better served as an article on "holistic information security", for which there are plenty of sources. --jonny-mt 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep but move and add refs. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and add refs. Per User:jonny-mt, the certification is growing and has been picked up by well-known organizations such as the British Standards Institute. (COI disclaimer: I started the article, and hold the certification myself). --mariusstrom 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Arto Tukio
not notable, no sources, very little editing activity, very few mainspace pages link to it Croctotheface (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as athlete in premier league per WP:BIO (see additional criteria "Athletes".) Article still needs references but presume notability per guideline. Might have been better to use a notability tag to prompt editors to reference the subject? Premier League athletes shouldn't be coming to AfD. Note that the prod was declined. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even if the subject is notable, the article still has the other issues I raised. Unless this AfD inspires someone to source and expand it, this will be a one line article forever that serves no informative purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is true that the issue of no references remains. I'm confident that as this athlete is a premier league player that sources will be available. Trouble is they are most likely to be found in the media of Finland. Much easier for us here if the athlete is in an English language country. The subject is no less notable for being where he is though. If you'd put up a Canadian premier league ice hockey player the refs would be on the article by now. The five days for an AfD to run its course doesn't give a lot of time to find suitable WP:RS in these cases, but it's obvious to me the athlete is notable even without the refs being there yet. Perhaps a Wikipedia editor from Finland can cite local sources? The problem therein being unless they see this AfD in the five day period, how do they know about it? Sting au Buzz Me... 07:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even if the subject is notable, the article still has the other issues I raised. Unless this AfD inspires someone to source and expand it, this will be a one line article forever that serves no informative purpose. Croctotheface (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that raises my other concerns: the article has been here since August 2006 with no improvement or expansion. Few mainspace articles link to it. There have been 17+ months for some editor to come along and introduce a SINGLE source of which this person is the subject, and it hasn't happened. So, really, it's not as if the article was created today and I nominated it for deletion, leaving only five days to find a source. There has never been a source. I also want to point out that the "major professional league" mention in WP:BIO is just one of a set of criteria that suggest that the subject might be significant enough to have an article. Regarding these criteria, the guideline takes care to say that "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Considering that the only argument in favor of having this article is that the subject of it meets one of those criteria, it seems to me to be a strong case for deletion. Croctotheface (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per String au's comments above, possibly WP:SNOW as bad nomination. Lack of sourcing and orphaned articles are not criteria for deletion. That's a cleanup issue. Redfarmer (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- You should note, too, the Finish version of the article quotes sources, so I agree that sources do indeed exist. Redfarmer (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep professional athlete. --Krm500 (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep meets WP:BIO guidelines as a professional athlete. If you have a problem with the article either tag it or fix it yourself. Don't afd it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just close as keep. I'm the nominator, and though I disagree with just about everything that everyone else has said here, there's no way there can be a consensus for deleting the article. It's not worth keeping the discussion open. I would be very surprised if this article ever expands beyond what is there now and succeeds in informing people about anything, but that is irrelevant, apparently, to this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was transwiki and delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Schizodactyly
- Schizodactyly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and ghits are more of the same Travellingcari (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --mariusstrom 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into hand or add refs to make encyclopedic. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Sting au Buzz Me... 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki if not already on Wiktionary, otherwise delete per WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:WINAD Rsazevedo msg 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki per Redfarmer RogueNinjatalk 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Rosary of the Unborn
- Rosary of the Unborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This has been speedy deleted three times now. This creation was a contested prod. I'm going to remain neutral as to this AfD. I'm not convinced this prayer or chain of beads or whatever is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. I just think it needs discussion.
- There is an actual product, the Rosary of the Unborn (TM) sold at [26]. I'm not sure if this article is supposed to be referring to that product or not.
- It appears to be common to say a prayer for the "unborn". Ghits at [27]. I'm not sure if it's a specific prayer or if it's just a common practice to pray to end abortion or what. The number of GHits is rather small, suggesting this isn't notable.
eaolson (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
*DeleteThere does not seem to be enough information to merge with Rosary, it does not appear to be advertising per sources, but it seems to be very minor & probably not worthy of mention, but that isn't my decision. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed the article, provided sourcing and made into what I think, is a workable stub - Keep. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable. Mh29255 (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. not notable enough for its own article, perhaps worth a passing mention in Rosary if a reference can be found - Dumelow (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -Andrew c [talk] 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still do not believe the "workable stub" is appropriate. There are two sources: a self-published webpage which seems like a glorified product promotion. I'm not convinced that one brief mention in a book about abortion in Spain establishes notability. Besides, it seems to me that many google hits are just referencing not a phrase "Rosary of the Unborn" but describing something else in lowercase letters "rosary of the unborn..." This would be similar to having article on Rosary of the Blessed Virgin and Rosary for the Church in need and Rosary for the family. These are all common things that a rosary can be prayed for, but that does not mean we need an article on each one. This specific topic is a bit confusing because we need to be careful not to mix a product/promotional website with a phrase that isn't referring to that website. Regardless, both usages are not notable. Perhaps a section in the main rosary article could work.-Andrew c [talk] 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge into an appropriate article. This article is not about a product, even if there is a product with the same name. It's about a religious practice. Fg2 (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced substub. May be worth a brief mention in Rosary. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I had added three sources when removing the deletion proposal. Then the user who had initially proposed deletion removed the sources and proposed deletion a second time. I have added the sources again, together with an appropriate stub template. Fg2 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I just can't find a non-trivial reference other than the commercial site (and there, it's unclear whether they are referring to their particular product or the religious practice). Cancel this vote if one gets added, I believe it may be notable but just don't see the evidence. Rigadoun (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment: the search term "Rosary for the Unborn" gives twice as many hits on google as the current name does. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Adding: also google news, where the three stories are all specifically about this devotion. And 1 hit on google
scholarbooks that I've just added as a source to the article. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)- Comment. Per Andrew c above, the book reference you added just seems to be talking about the rosary as a general prayer said for a reason, not a particular and specific thing. People say rosaries for all sorts of reasons, but each one doesn't need an article. eaolson (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adding: also google news, where the three stories are all specifically about this devotion. And 1 hit on google
- Delete This article seems to be just a backdoor into the Rosary article for a commercial website that sells rosaries. The website makes unfounded claims about the spiritual power of the rosary it sells. The website had been directly linked from the Rosary article at least four times and subsequently reverted. Roesser (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article is not meant to advertise, only explain a popular devotion. I started the page and I am in no way associated with the company. It is meant to explain a devotion growing in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConceptLife (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC) — ConceptLife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This article is describing a practice benficial to most Catholics. Leave it alone, there are many pages describing products on Wikipedia, why do you care about deleting this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.248.227 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
— 76.98.248.227 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Sufficiently important in "pro-life" settings, and frequently mentioned in Catholic publications.DGG (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly clear, to what Catholic publications are you referring? And are you talking about the product "Rosary of the Unborn" or about a rosary prayer said for the unborn. If it is the latter, would you support articles for the Rosary for the family, Rosary for the dead, Rosary for the Church etc? -Andrew c [talk] 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - 14:10, 29 January 2008 Orangemike deleted "Global Community One World Unity Army" (CSD A1: Very short article providing little or no context) - Non admin close. --Onorem♠Dil 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
Global Community One World Unity Army
- Global Community One World Unity Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No idea what this article refers to. Prod tag expired but modified twice. Possible CSD candidate. Dchall1 (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as Apocalypsecruft. It's a reference to the Left Behind series of novels. Probably not notable outside the fictional world. eaolson (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No idea what this is without the above explanation, and even so, it's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowfire51 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: non-notable, in-universe fictional reference. Mh29255 (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per eaolson. Maxamegalon2000 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Snowball delete, could be a speedy A1. Short, no context to the reader. I'll be WP:BOLD and just tag it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Kelly Taylor (actress)
- Kelly Taylor (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Autobiographical article about a nonnotable actress to promote themselves on Wikipedia. User originally replaced disambiguation page with their own article, but it was moved to its current position, where the same user has been, along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. No notable roles and nothing in article asserts any other notability. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also Kelly Taylor (Actress). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Only acting parts are very small bit parts, falls way short of notability for actors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I speak as an actor, supporting another actor who was a lead in a film in which I myself had only a small supporting role. I never actually met her as we were never in a scene together and we each shot on different days, but I do know of her works. I say this right up front so other editors may look at the article's history and judge for themselves. Question my neutrality if you wish, but the truth of this article's edits is there for any to see. Contrary to the claim that only she and a sockpuppet were editing this particular article (please check the history), the current version sent to Afd was an edit put up by experienced wiki editor user:Hqb. It was then improved by numerous editors, such as User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse among others. The few small edits done by the 2 editors later blocked as being sockpuppets (in a different disagreement with the nominating editor) met all criteria for article improvement and were entirely within the proper Wiki scope of improving an article... despite the later blocking. But one can not discount works of the several other editors who had continued to improve the article and who themselves have a long and successful history of improvements to Wiki. The nominating editor makes no mention of them or their beneficial contributions. I do. The current article's version history shows that 1) Miss Taylor has herself made made no edits to it for some 9 months, and 2) User: Hqb, User:Jlittlet, User:Wenli, User:Stemonitis, and User:AndrewHowse all felt the article and actress had enough notability to continue editing. I ask other editors to carefully examine this article's history, and the history of those editors who have made additions and deletions, to carefully judge the merit and reasons for the additions and deletions, and so decide for themselves if this article might stay. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just because other editors cleaned up the article doesn't necessarily mean that they endorse it or its contents. I once created a page on a punk rock band because one of their albums had been listed at AfD (general consensus is that if a band is notable, then so are their albums) -- and personally, I'd rather stick a knife in my ear than listen to punk rock. I'm sure that your comments are in good faith; however, I would suggest you read WP:N first, as it clearly delineates the criteria for notability, which this actress seems to fail. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- User:MichaelQSchmidt either is, or has employed, to write his own biography article. I wouldn't put too much stock in his response. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then perhaps put stock in this: I have no problem supporting any AfD made by this nominator if made in true good faith and for the right reasons. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Khan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Evans (actor)). It is conterproductive to include specious arguments simply to attempt to sway support. A claim of non-notability was fine all by itself. Anything else simply clouds the issue (no pun intended). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- L.L.King is a publicist. L.L.King has many clients. I am not L.L.King. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hiring a publicist to write an article for you is a violation of WP:MEAT. It is also a (likely) violation of WP:AUTO and WP:NPOV. I would therefore propose that this article (and all others written by King as publicity pieces) be deleted under that critiera. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Living in the real world, actors have publicists. L.L.King was not directed to write an article about me for Wikipedia, nor to my knowledge was he instructed to write about anyone or anything here on Wikipedia. No actor has the time to micro-manage the work of others, and I only became aware of last month's events after receiving numerous emails telling me. Making any claim that King was directed by me to target Wikipedia, is an incorrect allegation. Being in the real world, he was simply doing his job. He was not instructed how or where to do it. That he or his employees decided to edit on Wikipedia was their own choice. That argument has been settled. Coming back to it time after time after time after time is beating a horse long dead. I concur with the nominating editor that King edits be scutinized carefully and that such edits themselves be considered for removal if found untrue, unsupported, or in any way damaging to Wikipedia. I disagree that an entire article about anyone or anything should entirely be removed simply because of inappropriate edits. If removing an entire article simply because of inappropriate edits were to be policy, Wikipedia would be a very empty place. Judge the edits on thir own merits... as certainly, and despite WP:NPOV and WP:COI, if an editor did not have some sort of interest in an article, they would not feel inclined to make it better. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article about actress Taylor may indeed fail WP:N. Let that be the determinating factor here. All I ask is that editors review the history and not take the nominator's repeated misdirections as fact. In the nomination, the nominator makes the blatantly incorrect and misleading statement that Kelly Taylor was "along with a blocked puppetmaster, one of the only contributers. The article's history shows many other editors have made significant contributions. The nominator made misleading statements to imply that the article currently in AfD was entirely autobiographical in nature and written by actress Taylor. Article history shows that not only has Taylor ignored this article for over 9 months, it has been quite thourougly re-written by others not associated with Taylor. The nominator has a well demonstrated habit of first de-constructing an article to make it non-notable (as was done in this case), and then nominating the article for deletion for being non-notable. All the nominator need have done was place the original article in Afd as being non-notable and then step back. If the AfD succeeds or fails, fine... there was no need for this continued habit of mis-direction and half truths. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I concur that the mentioned editor is being misleading in his comments. Additionally, that someone was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet does not mean all of their articles should be deleted. CC knows this is not the same person and it has already been addressed. I have no idea why it needed to be brought up here. — BQZip01 — talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since my name was mentioned above, I would like to clarify for the record that I did not create the original version of this article, nor did I approve of its contents; I merely moved it here from Kellytaylor777's inappropriate edit to the dab page, as mentioned in the AfD nomination. At the time, the article was a straight publicity piece, and I immediately tagged it as such. Later, the worst neutrality violations were cleaned up (by myself and others), but the notability issue remains: at least according to Google, the subject of the article has received virtually no independent coverage in reliable sources, and does not otherwise appear to satisfy the criteria in WP:BIO#Entertainers. Unless someone can address those concerns in the very near future, I can't see any strong reason to keep the article. Hqb (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I apologize that I misunderstood your part in the article in question. I mentioned you and the others who had improved the article only to refute a blatant allegation that the article was edited only by Kelly Taylor and sockpuppets. I agree that if found non-notable by consensus that the article should be removed, but disagree with de-constructing an article to make it non-notable prior to nominating it as non-notable, or in making false statements in order to sway support.. as both these methods can be themselves interpreted as being self-serving and contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:COI. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Exclusively small parts. Fails notability criteria, at least for the moment. Rsazevedo msg 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I concur that this article fails WP:N — BQZip01 — talk 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No main roles in any mainstream movies + lack of significant coverage Corpx (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Either the band is notable in itself or it is not; affiliation with other (notable) bands makes no difference, unless it is well-documented. As of now no third-party source has been found. Note that the deletion includes band's members and the album.--PeaceNT (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Due to a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19, there were concerns about a third party source presented here and not taken fully into account during the discussion. Consensus was to restore the band article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Allele (band)
- Allele (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BAND. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Only claim to notability is that they have a song that gets played when you play a video game, nothing else, does not meet WP:MUSIC, I would suggest rolling into this afd Andy Toole, Lane Maverick & Giancarlo Autenzio, who's only claim to notability is that they are members of this non-notable band. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because they don't pass WP:MUSIC: --mariusstrom 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lane Maverick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Giancarlo Autenzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andy Toole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
And I am also procedurally listing another related article (isn't this fun?): Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. Also recommend strong delete of the individual band members pages as well. --mariusstrom 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously non-notable band. Seems logical that the band members therefore are not notable either, so delete those pages, too. --Crusio (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:MUSIC per association with former member of Cold and from touring with successful bands. Catchpole (talk) 10:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- According to WP:MUSIC a redirect to the notable band is appropriate in cases like that. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep, contains two members of other notable bands. Their only album was on an apparently notable label, so I'm sure there's something somewhere about this band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note that WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums released with a major label. --Crusio (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, their label is pushing the definition of notable as well. Dchall1 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Corporate Punishment Records isn't notable, i will nom next up. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails to fulfill WP:BAND criteria. Rsazevedo msg 23:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment—There appears to be at least a little independent third-party coverage. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep; the article is sourced now. Sandstein (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Concert Ten
Delete Non notable concert per WP:NMG. Cannot find reliable source to substantiate notability claims. Veritas (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Please disregard this nomination. Viriditas is a disruptive wikipedian and is merely engaging in aggravated harrassment towards me by going around Wikipedia using my username, searching out articles that I have written or added to, and nominating them for deletion, just for spite, in some sort of major edit war. He has disrupted the entire Hippie article for over a year by engaging in edit wars with at least a dozen people, basically commandeered the article so nobody else can edit it, and I have made mention of this fact is several talk pages. His answer to this is to search out my writings to have them deleted. In my opinion, Viriditas is a disruptive editor and needs to have his use of Wikipedia curtailed. What he is doing now is an act of Wiki-terrorism.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep now that some sources have begun to turn up. May be useful to redirect to a general "rock festivals" page in the near future if it can't be expanded past Start-Class.(this comment was added 01:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
DeleteI am not Veritas, but I support deleting the article if WP:RS cannot be found. Morgan, can you look through the archives of the Pocono, Pennsylvania newspapers to see if you can find anything? As it stands, the article does not meet the basic requirements of WP:NMG. —Viriditas | Talk 05:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC) - Comment. I also would like to state my belief that Viriditas and Veritas are two accounts being used by the same person. I got an email from Viriditas that the Concert 10 article was in question, and that he was nominating it for deletion. This is an extremely obscure article that is almost never visited. Then when I see the nomination for deletion, it was by Veritas. Many times I have seen these two accounts being used in tandem, and much too often for it to be a coincidence. It is clear that these are two sock puppets of the same person, who has not even given his real name. I would like the powers that be, to investigate these two accounts to make sure they are not sock puppets of the same disruptive individual.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Prior to this nom, I asked WikiProjct Rock Music to look into this topic. I will now notify the project about the deletion request. —Viriditas | Talk 05:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No sources to prove that this event ever actually took place. Without that, it doesn't matter who the other two people here are. DarkAudit (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There are two sources that I've found for the event: 1) Someone who runs or has access to the "Hyzer Creek Disc Golf Course" in Saratoga Springs, New York, scanned a photo of the flyer and uploaded it to their personal website:[28] 2) the New York Public Library "Inventory of Clipping Files (Subjects), [ca. 1895- ]" has a folder containing documents about the event in their possession:[29] However, the web entry does not have any detailed information except for the following accession data: "Concert Ten (festival) 1 folder Used for: Poconos Rock Festival". The NYPL website says that the folder contains "clippings from newspapers, magazines and other ephemeral items, documenting all aspects of music." I am under the impression that the creator of the article lives in that area. I would ask that he visit the Music Division at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts at 40 Lincoln Center Plaza and make an appointment to access the folder. —Viriditas | Talk 05:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Here is a convincing source to prove that it took place. I added this reference to the article and the person who calls himself Veritas and Viriditas deleted the reference.[30] I think it should be clear from this that the person and his two sock puppets are engagin in edit wars and should be blocked from Wikipedia.Morgan Wright (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'Keep a festival at Mount Pocono is mentioned in the Rolling Stones Encyclopedia of Rock n Roll. The book Without You: The Tragic Story of Badfinger lists them as playing at Mount Pocono on 8 July 1972. Catchpole (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we've already established that the concert took place, but does the source you reference support the text in the current article? What is notable about this concert? Should we have articles on every concert? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- If a six figure attendance can be confirmed then that looks like a reasonable indication of notability to me. Otherwise possibilites are to redirect to Pocono Raceway or Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania and mention the event there. Catchpole (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Where do you get six figures from? Searching for the term you've introduced, "Mount Pocono" gives me two sources listing a figure of 200,000 people: a trivia page for a Rock Music course at Georgetown University classifies it as one of "The Most Famous Rock Festivals" "[31]; and a book on Gbooks titled "Protecting Dissent, Policing Disorder" published by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration in 1974 lists the same number. A magazine ad in Billboard magazine on eBay claims 250,000. With all of this in mind, we are left with a small stub consisting of less than 25 words, considering that the other information Morgan added cannot be verified and is found in blogs and web forums. Now, I did point to the archive at the NYPL, but until someone can get their hands on that all we have is a stub. I suggest redirecting to Rock festival (where a link to the festival already exists) until this archive can be accessed by someone in New York. —Viriditas | Talk 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- If a six figure attendance can be confirmed then that looks like a reasonable indication of notability to me. Otherwise possibilites are to redirect to Pocono Raceway or Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania and mention the event there. Catchpole (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I think we've already established that the concert took place, but does the source you reference support the text in the current article? What is notable about this concert? Should we have articles on every concert? —Viriditas | Talk 12:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The sources belong in the article, not the AfD. Even if the flyer is genuine, a personal website is not considered a reliable secondary source. DarkAudit (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Can someone e-mail Dr. Burnette (Sonny_Burnette AT georgetowncollege.edu) and get his take on this? He's the one who calls this concert one of "The Most Famous Rock Festivals". (see link above) His bibliography can be found here so he's obviously getting this information from at least one of the books on that list. We also know there is an archive of material about this concert at the NYPL, but unless one has access to the physical collection, we can't get at it. —Viriditas | Talk 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I was at the concert myself when I was 16 (I'm 52 now) and remember people in the crowd were saying they heard there were 300,000, but of course they were guessing and spreading rumors. It is my impression that it was not as big as Woodstock, but I did not go to Woodstock so I cannot say. I am no expert at estimating crowds. I would believe the 200,000 figure as well as the 250,000 figure. There were about 20 acres of cars parked, although they were not parked very tightly, and this is also an estimate. I've been to concerts that had 10,000, this was at least 20 or 30 times bigger, and I've been to baseball stadiums filled with 40,000 and of course this was many times bigger. The problem with finding local newspaper articles to cite is that I have to get in my car and drive to NYC (200 miles) or the Poconos (250 miles) and I'm not really that into this article, sorry to say. I know you think this is very important to me. It is actually quite unimportant. But I thank the people who have done the legwork on finding sources.Morgan Wright (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You are very welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Don't mention it, Veritas. Morgan Wright (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm removing the blog reference you added as it seems to be trying to sell the Rhapsody (online music service) and it is not a "reliable preiodical" as you claimed on your talk page. —Viriditas | Talk 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Don't mention it, Veritas. Morgan Wright (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. You are very welcome. —Viriditas | Talk 15:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep now that reliable sources have been added. --MPerel 01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep : A reliable source has been added indicating the notability. Europe22 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I believe there is agreement that there are enough references, will somebody please rem. the nomination tag from the main article?69.116.202.26 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)— 69.116.202.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Morgan, AfD's generally remain open for at least 5 days after nomination. --Veritas (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Old discussion from VfD
Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004
Natural Hygiene
This article was listed for deletion, and a notice added to the page, but the mediawiki page wasn't started. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- I listed it. This is an ad for quackery. This showed up on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and someone had tried to NPOV it, but I doubt there is anything worth saving in this malarkey. Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the subject is quackery, but I think the editor did a pretty good job of NPOV'ing it. The subject should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Thue 14:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP - This is a well known branch of alternative medicine popularlized by Paul Bragg. A bunch of trolls have tried to destroy this article. But, the vandalism can be removed. The use of the word quackery is advocating a point of view. -- John Gohde 18:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- KEEP - I am the original author of this page. I thought this was an encyclopedia, without censorship. Freedom of speech and freedom of health is a necessary thing if men are to aquire knowledge and pursue their own happiness. Whether it is quackery or not, is an opinion. I have had 32 years of experience with this. For those that are opposed, what experience do you have with Natural Hygiene? -- User:Paulbmann
- Keep. It needs a lot of work to become truly NPOV (rather than just an argument between two sets of advocates) but is a perfectly valid article to be here.--ALargeElk 16:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I listed it on Wikipedia:Cleanup, and I was the editor who went through it and tried to NPOV it - in its original condition it was essentially an advertisement for the system it describes, and I'm afraid that is POV. Obviously the original author didn't like the results, and since I believe the system described is a particularly noxious kind of quackery, I may well have been too aggressive in my edits. But the place for that debate is the article's talk page. As far as VfD goes, whether we are for or against the system, it undoubtedly exists and has quite a significant following, so it is not just entitled to but needs an article. What it can't have is an uncritical piece of advocacy. seglea 17:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it. Even if it's harmful stuff you don't agree with, it has a place in an encyclopedia so long as it is a theory of health that some people believe in, and provided the entry about it is NPOV - which it seems to be in process of becoming. Tonusperegrinus 18:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- Withdrawing this; when I first read it my impression was that it was full of self-promotion that no attempt at NPOVing could fix, and idiosyncratic nonsense along the lines of the "real magic" article that was deleted a few days ago. It seems that it is idiosyncratic nonsense with a following. I am going to have to get out the book that has Martin Gardner's account of the death of Eugene V. Debs in it, it seems. Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Nitobi
Non notable, orphaned article. Rtphokie (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:CORP, does not meet criteria for inclusion. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:CORP --mariusstrom 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 06:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Team Tejas. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Trinity (Team Tejas)
- Trinity (Team Tejas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, in-universe character. Mh29255 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteMerge to Team Tejas. Rsazevedo msg 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Team Tejas. Any worthwhile info on this page should be copied over to the main article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 15:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge or keep, whatever the closing admin feels is more practical. This is similar to a Pokemon character. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Independent Republic Quarterly
- Independent Republic Quarterly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non notable, orphaned article Rtphokie (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Quite a few Google hits, subject seems relevant enough. Rsazevedo msg 23:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete google hits do not give notability. I fail to see any significant coverage / honors for this group Corpx (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Horry County history essentially rides on this organization, and most books about or detailing Horry County either mention it or include information from it. Carson (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Independent Republic Quarterly isn't a historical society as the article states, it's a publication of the Horry County Historical Society which doesn't even have an article. Looks like a small, but long time publication covering local history. I'm only counting 3 Google hits oustie of the Wikipedia article itself and the external link in the article, 1 is the local public library mentioning the publication, and 2 are genealogy related.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Hitone Records
- Hitone Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable record label, orphaned article. Rtphokie (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete wp:corp absolutely no assertion of notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by User:Pegasus, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Crans (Moon) and 2007 Jaden
Hoax. No such moon, no such asteroid. Corvus cornixtalk 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no reliable sources. Nakon 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pegasus «C¦T» 12:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Felix Just
No indication of notability in this article, the external link in this article. Google search doesn't produce anything notable either. Rtphokie (talk) 04:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Only one sentence, with no assertion of notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 as a non-notable biography, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
James Evans (actor)
- James Evans (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article about a nonnotable actor generated by himself (76.17X.XX.XXX is a blocked user claiming to be the same) or his associates to promote himself and his work in very minor roles, namely as a bailiff in a handful of court shows. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails under "entertainers" per Wikipedia:Notability (people) not a major part in a notable show, gg. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete 95% of the edits done to the article were done by editors later blocked as sockpuppets. Had it been only 5% with the majority of the edits being done by established editors, I might have felt compelled to rise to its defense. The article's only merit is that actor ishimself Latino and quite popular among hispanic viewers in the US. I do not know how well that demographic is represented here on Wiki, or if they might feel him to be notable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non of his productions or acting parts seem particularly notable - Dumelow (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as the stated editors appear to be from SPAs. Notability based on genetic representation is not a factor in my decision, but the intent of the SPAs to circumvent policy definitely is. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiAfterDark
- WikiAfterDark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable website. Nakon 03:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep First, I'd like to point out that the nominator tried to speedy delete a sourced article that has stood for months. It seems they are jumping the gun a little bit asserting that a wiki that is the only one of its kind and is mentioned by name in The Boston Globe is not notable. VanTucky 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonnotable website written entirely as promotional material. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the only neutral source is a one-sentence drive by reference. No notability provided. Corvus cornixtalk 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The only third-party source is a trivial mention. Fails WP:WEB. --L. Pistachio (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with Corvus and Lord Pistachio. Although I should mention that a one sentence mention is approximately the attention what Wikitruth received in its independent source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete, appears to fail WP:WEB. No genuine notability provided.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable. Mentioned by name in The Boston Globe, only one of its kind. Over 40,000 google hits. --helohe (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Google hits are not a valid reason to retain an article. The Boston Globe article is only superficial, as mentioned above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helohe (talk • contribs) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I get 266 hits. Corvus cornixtalk 03:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I searched like this, did you turn off the family filter? --helohe (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. You're searching for all sites that have the words Wiki, After and Dark in them, not a valid search for WikiAfterDark. Nor even for "Wiki After Dark" (with quotes around the search term). Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but if I'm searching it your way I get 9200 hits. --helohe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you go to the last page of the search? Only 305 unique hits. -[32] - most of those hits are dups on the same page. Corvus cornixtalk 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, but if I'm searching it your way I get 9200 hits. --helohe (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yup. You're searching for all sites that have the words Wiki, After and Dark in them, not a valid search for WikiAfterDark. Nor even for "Wiki After Dark" (with quotes around the search term). Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Only one third-party source? Rsazevedo msg 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No secondarily published information which could be used as verifiable information for an article. Wickethewok (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, non-notable website (an eight-word mention in a newspaper article rattling off a list of wikis is not really evidence of notability). --Stormie (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
ESP Ahrue Luster
- ESP Ahrue Luster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A google search in any language returns results that are mainly product listings with no information on why the product should be considered notable. Article has been unsourced likely because it doesn't appear that there are (m)any sources for this guitar. Travellingcari (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Corpx (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vastly improved by rewrite. Most of the delete comments were prior to the rewrite.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Skim (software)
- Skim (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No notability asserted. No sources. Nothing to indicate this software warrants an article. Speedy deletion denied. Delete Exxolon (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. ("And much more...") ~ Carlin U T C @ 03:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Mmmmmm... fresh spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Appears to be the first and only open source (BSD license) PDF browser for OS X (correct me if I'm wrong). However, it is new, and likely with a limited user base. +mt 05:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - it looks and smells like a SPAM advert! WP:Advert. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Article has been substantially rewritten. It is still rather short, but it clearly no longer has an advertisement-like tone, and it is clearly references to four independent sources. This one now passes notability tests, even if the nominated version didn't. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Rewrite makes for a much better article; no longer spammy, contains valid citations, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Valid, concise, and interesting information. Asserts being the first open source pdf reader. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Asserts notability, with sources. --L. Pistachio (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal
- Old Canadian Bank of Commerce Building, Montreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
7 english ghits, a handful in French and no google news hits. None of the articles assert any real sense of notability and a search of local press didn't turn up much either. Article has also been orphaned since November 2006. Travellingcari (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N, article in no way asserts notability. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable building in any way, given the total lack of third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Historic building by very notable architect firm Pearson and Darling, a strong assertion of notability. The French google search was flawed in that English words were used in the search terms (French Canadians are notorious for translating everything to French, even though the original names were in English). I've added some referenced content to the article. After doing some more research, I see the proper name is the "Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Building". --Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I just did a new French search on the alternate French term that someone added and still came up with very little. I'm not sure a notable architect=notable building. Travellingcari (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless somebody can find significant coverage and/or prove that its on some historic list of buildings (a list maintained by a reliable source). Corpx (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I have been inside the banking hall of the building, and I was impressed. A building like this would have attracted significant coverage at the time it opened, but 1909 newspaper articles and architectural magazines can't be searched with Google. --Eastmain (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not true, here's a search from that decade. Google has indexed a fair bit of material from that time. I'd also say that being 'impressed' isn't notable. I'm impressed with the street meet served outside my office, but that doesn't mean it's notable or garnered any press attention. No one has proved that this building has -- in any language. Travellingcari (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Comment - Is true. Google News Archives search is limited to certain newspapers that publish most archives or previews online. Only a handful like the New York Times do. Currently, none of the Montreal newspapers, either still in operation or defunct, will display newspaper articles from that time period on Google News Archives search. --Oakshade (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment so then you go to the source. Local library. I don't think notability can be determined based on what might have been covered. Just my two cents. ProQuest might be an option, however I'm currently having trouble logging in via my school's network. Travellingcari (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's what the original commenter was saying. You won't find urls from local newspapers from 1909. They exist on hardcopy and some of those references are now in the article. Print references are valid. --Oakshade (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- ** CommentI read the revised article and my vote hasn't changed. I still don't think it meets notability. Clearly others agree as well. See above comments re: historic list of buildings and third party coverage. We'll see how it ends up but in my opinion, it still doesn't meet notability criteria.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —---Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —--18:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Oakshade (talk) t
Keep "it was one of the very first skyscrapers in Montreal."[33] - what do you mean, it isn't notable? Link it to something and we're fine. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I agree with your sentiment, the skyscraper building you're referring to from that reference is the building next door, The Canada Life Building (which probably should have an article for the reason you stated). This building is the one with the large columns to the right of it in the photo. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah! Apologies my bad. That one looks a pretty good example of neoclassical architecture although it might be built a little late to be significant (for Montreal I mean) - I'll have a hunt. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well the nomination seems rather moot now - the article appears to have more references than bodytext! Out of interest I did find it listed in a catalogue of fine art at the University of Toronto [34] and another photo [35] regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't for the life of me understand how people see a "lack of coverage". No Google News hits? Well what do you expect: it's an old building and a piece of architectural history in Montreal. Why would that make headlines? No Ghits? Did you check your favourite library instead? The building is mentioned in the Canadian Encyclopedia, in the journal Canadian Architect and Builder, is listed as a significant part of Montreal architecture by Phyllis Lambert and by the McCord Museum [36]. Look beyond Ghits people. There are references at the bottom of the page: if you're too lazy to track these down in the library, fine, but don't delete the article on the grounds that you can't see it on the web. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think the above makes it clear that significant coverage has been achieved. SorryGuy Talk 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge. Please note. I am putting 100% of the text (minus the AfD tag) into the article Mega City (The Matrix), and as such, will need cleanup once there. Club Hel (The Matrix) will be a redirect to the subsection Mega City (The Matrix)#Club Hel. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Club Hel (The Matrix)
- Club Hel (The Matrix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article is just a repetition of parts of the Matrix movies plots, which is already covered in those articles. The rest is unsourced speculation about the potential symbolism, and any such information that can be found, is more appropriately placed in the Matrix film articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete nn and not an important part of the series but too much here for a merge. JJL (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Plot summary and original research. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not relevant enough to have its own article. Rsazevedo msg 23:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into Mega City (The Matrix). Axl (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect without deletion into Mega City (The Matrix). Memorable aspect of notable fictional franchise, but article is short enough where a merge would probably work best. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Mega City (The Matrix); but only merge in the parts that are important (not the plot summary). Ank329 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Underdog Records
- Underdog Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete fails notability, released (apparently) some records by local Chicago bands, none of which appear to be notable (with the possible exception of Oblivion (band)), fails wp:corp. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to fail WP:CORP; one (possibly) notable band doesn't a notable label make. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --PeaceNT (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 23:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable record company. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 23:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Has more than one notable band as evidenced by the article itself - also Screeching Weasel used to be on this label. The fact that it's independent and obscure doesn't preclude notability.Delete per below Wisdom89 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- How does it meet wp:corp ? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Capital City (The Simpsons)
- Capital City (The Simpsons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article is just a plot repetition of this minor city in various Simpsons episodes, with no assertion of notability. As such, it is just duplicative of the very high quality Simpsons article and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete nn, minor aspect of series. --JJL (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable, rarely mentioned even in the series itself. Doubtful that secondary sources exist to satisfy WP:FICT. Mostly plot summary as well. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Sufficiently covered by List of fictional places on The Simpsons#Capital City. Per WP:FICT there is insufficient content to support a split per WP:SIZE. I would also not be opposed to a redirect to the afforementioned link. -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Verdatum. Possibly redirect this term to the episode where the city first appears Doc Strange (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, no real-world notability (and very little in the series either). Terraxos (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect, pretty much by the same above reasons, although i think we could use a little of it perhaps. Kingpomba (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete/Transwiki Fictional subject with no real world notability Corpx (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or merge and redirect without deleting to List of fictional places on The Simpsons#Capital City. Definitely a memorable aspect of perhaps the most notable animated series of all time. I was able to find at least one reference, which should be preserved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- That source doesn't appear to be reliable and even if it was, it's just a direct transcription of dialogue from the show. It does nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The millions who have seen the episode could also vouch for it. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and the guidelines to establish notability. I don't think I need to restate those guidelines again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- That particular reference is for the lyrics of a song mentioned, not for notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and that only reliable sources should be used as references. I don't think I need to restate the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Contrary to your opinion about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Five pillars states that it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable for information of a notable fictional city and again, I am not opposed to merging it into a list of fictional locations from that program. Many song articles have an external link to song lyrics. The Simpson's Guide reinforces what can be cross-referenced by watching the program in question regarding the particular aspect of the episode. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You need to review one primary aspect of the five pillars more closely. Specifically, the first line of WP:SOURCES and the first few lines of WP:SPS. The website you have referenced is a self-published, personal website that clearly does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Labeling it as a "specialized encyclopedia" is a blatant misrepresentation. I doubt anything useful will result from continuing this discussion since, contrary to my previous comments, you actually don't have an understanding of the policies that you reference, so in the interest of saving time for both of us I will not continue it further. Best, Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Contrary to your opinion about Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Five pillars states that it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." A specialized encyclopedia is perfectly acceptable for information of a notable fictional city and again, I am not opposed to merging it into a list of fictional locations from that program. Many song articles have an external link to song lyrics. The Simpson's Guide reinforces what can be cross-referenced by watching the program in question regarding the particular aspect of the episode. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and that only reliable sources should be used as references. I don't think I need to restate the criteria for what constitutes a reliable source again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- That particular reference is for the lyrics of a song mentioned, not for notability. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've seen you around enough to know that you're familiar with policy and the guidelines to establish notability. I don't think I need to restate those guidelines again here. Doctorfluffy (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The millions who have seen the episode could also vouch for it. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- That source doesn't appear to be reliable and even if it was, it's just a direct transcription of dialogue from the show. It does nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- the reference that you feel should be preserved is merely a link to a WP:COPYVIO that has no place on WP. per WP:FICT, we really need a reference that establishes notability to keep the article. Otherwise, you're pretty much just saying WP:ILIKEIT. -Verdatum (talk) 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The ILIKEIT link is "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." We should respect that our readers and contributors have an interest in articles and willingness to improve them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it's a policy or guideline is not the issue. The issue is that it is not a very strong argument, and does little to counter the concerns raised. -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to disagree and again I do agree with those who think a merger and redirect without deletion would be acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whether or not it's a policy or guideline is not the issue. The issue is that it is not a very strong argument, and does little to counter the concerns raised. -Verdatum (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The ILIKEIT link is "is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." We should respect that our readers and contributors have an interest in articles and willingness to improve them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyright violation. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Bruno Baumann
- Bruno Baumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability, the article is confusing, no links out of it, its orphaned what not... - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G12 as copyvio of this page. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim as nonsense. Dlohcierekim 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
North american bearvarine
- North american bearvarine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Clearly a hoax. Loonymonkey (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and consider blocking user. This is the user's only edit which tells me he isn't here to do anything constructive. Far too many hoaxes are being given far too much attention, another clear-cut case being Spider-Man: The Cartoon Movie. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Hill (basketball)
- Thomas Hill (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Well, here's proof that he played on Duke's championship team [37] and here's proof that he was drafted by the Pacers [38]. He never actually played in the NBA, but if he was the 39th pick of the draft, odds are good that he played pro ball somewhere. Give me some time to do research on this guy. Zagalejo^^^ 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Add the refs, and I'll be glad to withdraw the nom. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, since delete arguments focussed on the Premier Basketball League but the time and awards in the British Basketball League do qualify. Tikiwont (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jerry Williams (basketball player)
- Jerry Williams (basketball player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No references to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to play for a professional basketball team. Catchpole (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep, whilst I don't pretend to know anything about basketball the Premier Basketball League in which he plays seems to be an alternative top level league and hence he has notability. Though I will of course defer to a more knowledgeable authority in this matter! - Dumelow (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The Premier Basketball League is not even close to being a top level league. professional, yes. But in the same sense that minor league baseball players are professional. Even the info box describes the league as a "developmental". Players in minor leagues are not notable. DarkAudit (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete If it's not top level then NN as there is no other claim to notability. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep According to this, he once played in the BBL, which is the top-level basketball league in the UK. He was even the player of the year in 2004 [39]. There's an article about him here. Now, England is not known as a basketball country, but this guy does have at least a minor claim to notability. Zagalejo^^^ 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. But his British career, so to speak, should be mentioned in the article. Rsazevedo msg 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - If the above information provided by User:Zagalejo is added to the article, as well as the sources, it'll be a valid stub as far as I can see. I've added the first ref myself, and the second is too trivial. I'd withdraw if not for the delete !votes above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close. This needs to go to WP:DRV. — Caknuck (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Feloni
Non notable? Previous nom closed when pointed to these reviews, but that page is a) self-pub, and b) has reviews *of the cd*, and c) has no reliably sourced material. Artist is non-notable per WP:N and WP:BAND SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No nontrivial and reliable sources for band. Also note that reviews were not added as refs for article since last AfD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The last AfD was closed by a non-admin user on the same day as the AfD was opened as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Abena
No claim to notability, with most of the article being a list of the company's products. Speedy was rejected. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep and stubify. Looks notable enough to keep, but the entire Products section needs to go; it's WP:COATRACKed onto the article. Would be good to have another source or two in the intro, but I'll bet that some of the ones already on the article are good for the intro and possibly History section as well. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 02:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Which notability criteria do you feel it meets? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete. Not sure if the company's relevance is great enough for its own Wikipedia article... Rsazevedo msg 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Needs more than 3 self-references & one distributer catalog reference to prove WP:notability for an encyclopedia entry. Find the refs, save the article!--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - no notability established for the company or its products Corpx (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The company's website mentions that "The group employs approximately 1200 employees and has an annual turnover in access of 300 million EUR."[40]
- I agree with lifebaka
- « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:30 2008 February 3 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that is a primary source so does not help with establishing notability. Which notability criteria do you feel it may meet? Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I do not see a list of criteria for what makes businesses notable, but I do not think it is necessary here.
- Please see WP:CORP Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that this company is notable because of the sales volume (the exact number can be contested, but look at the photo of the company's headquarters. A company with small profits can't afford a place like that) and their relatively unique line of products. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:11 2008 February 4 (UTC)
- This seems to be original research on your part (e.g. guessing at profits based upon a photo) and there is still the issue that the source you mentioned is a primary source (the company's website). What is needed to support notability is a secondary source. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't cite the photo in the article. « D. Trebbien (talk) 06:14 2008 February 6 (UTC)
- This seems to be original research on your part (e.g. guessing at profits based upon a photo) and there is still the issue that the source you mentioned is a primary source (the company's website). What is needed to support notability is a secondary source. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: WikiProject Companies has been informed of this ongoing discussion. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article content fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment We need some objective evidence of market share. there is no way we can guess whether a firm that size is notable in the industry.DGG (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment After 5 minutes of googling I find lots of sources but none as yet that are reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. The article isn't written with any clue as to how one could prove notability. I'm guessing that the subject may well be notable and those sources out there but I can't say "keep" on a guess. There's not a whole lot to the article so it's not great loss to delete it, or inconvenience to the writer of a new article who does prove notability.Wikidemo (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep 350,000 google hits, many of which are for this company ("abena diaper" brought 10,500+ hits). From teh website it was apparent to me that this company is a big player in Denmark, if not Europe. Stub? Yes. Delete? No.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete despite the vast flood of anonymous users arguing to keep the article (this AFD was linked to from a 4chan post). --Coredesat 08:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Mark Prindle
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
This is a regretful AfD, as I do like the work of the person in question. However, I don't think that he really passes WP:N right now. I'll be quite willing to change my mind if proper sources are provided, but right now I don't see sources demonstrating that he is truly notable. If they existed, they'd have been found by now. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Non-notable enough. All the external links supplied are his own site and his MySpace page? (which BTW is not acceptable). Google does not show much independent confirmation. The first page is mostly WP and his own site. -- Alexf42 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article has existed since late 2004, but in all this time, I don't really see what makes him notable. He's quite well-known on the Internet in music criticism (an area I'm interested in - George Starostin is only notable for his linguistics, his music criticism is a footnote).--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's worth noting that Mark Prindle has been doing music criticism on the internet for over ten years, but third-party sources remain to be found. If they are found, I'll be quite willing to reconsider.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 03:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I mean, the subject of this article is well-known on the Internet as a music critic, I believe, and has had his site online since 1996. He was also in a band for a long time and interviews various punk rock musicians. But that doesn't mean he's notable enough for Wikipedia when there are probably no reliable sources about him. Weird, I sort of dogmatically assumed that he was notable until it occurred to me that there's a good chance he's not genuinely notable through the lack of third-party sources specifically addressing Prindle.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. In my case, I am not into the music scene and can honestly say I never heard of the guy before. Makes it easier to come with a fresh perspective and be more objective in searching for clues about notability. So far, my Delete recommendation stands, until proven otherwise. -- Alexf42 17:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Lots of pages link to Mark Prindle, but that's only because some articles are using his reviews in the infobox. I'm curious as to whether he should be considered a professional music critic or not given the informal writing he uses in the reviews. If he's not professional, then maybe articles shouldn't be using him at all as a source.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Corpx (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep I too have never heard of him, but a writer whose reviews are widely cited is notable. DGG (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please explain how it makes him notable if there are no reliable sources addressing the person in question? He does seem to be well-known in internet music criticism, but I feel he falls short of WP:BIO at the moment. He's a freelance music journalist, but Tim Jonze's article was deleted for the same reasons, I believe.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There really don't seem to be any decent third-party sources available. Not notable. Tim Ross·talk 21:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep it. Mark Prindle is an influence on other internet music writers. Just look at the links section on his website for a PLETHORA of sites inspired by his. I might not know much about Mozart, but not knowing his work doesn't mean I think his wikipedia entry should be deleted. Mark Prindle is the Lester Bangs of our day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.7.16 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Mark Prindle's website is itself a small version of Wikipedia. There are innumerable historical facts regarding underground rock spanning the last several decades to be found in his interviews. Just because he doesn't write for some large, corporate magazine like the Rolling Stone should not belittle his contribution to music journalism. I find the deletion of someone's entry into a public encyclopedia strange, as his popularity has as much to do with the mutability of the modern media paradigm as does Wikipedia's. Half of the problem with finding "significant coverage from reliable sources" is the fact that he is NOT part of the machine you are searching for "significant coverage from reliable sources" in. If this is a popularity contest, then please delete away... maybe there are a few hundred (thousand?) entries for bands that don't meet the same criteria and should be nixed. I repeat, don't delete!
Chowderdick (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how two paragraphs on an independent media figure, regardless of how small and cultish his following may be, are any more offensive and less important than the endless lists of useless pop culture trivia which are unavoidable on this site. How, for example, are the endless summaries of various television episodes any more important than a brief bio on a visible internet figure, with a popular website still in use? "I've never heard of him" is not a good reason for deletion - not many people have heard of Russian aircraft designer Andrei Nikolayevich Tupelov either, but that's no reason to argue that his article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.142.97 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. As I just added to his page: Mark's site is quoted or referenced in the following books: - "Neither Here Nor There" by the Melvins
- "Enter Naomi" by Joe Carducci
- "Hey Ho Let's Go: The Story of the Ramones" by Everett True
- "Hip Priest: The Story of Mark E. Smith and the Fall" by Simon Ford
He has been published in over a dozen print zines, as well as:
- the book "Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed"
- Maxim UK
He appears in the Pavement DVD "Slow Century" and is plagiarized on the back cover of "Perfect Sound Forever: The Story Of Pavement" by Rob Jovanovic.
Los Llamarada reference his site in their Dusted interview at http://www.dustedmagazine.com/features/704
His site is one of the longest-running review sites on the Internet, and he averages 2500-3000 individual visitors (25,000-30,000 clickthroughs) per day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.0.73 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Mark Prindle is hilarious and a great reviewer. He's been reviewing for god knows how long and there's tons of articles that could be removed before this one. And they guy above me is absoulutely correct in saying that "I've never heard of him" is a moronic and unjustified reason for deletion. If wikipedia worked like that, there'd probably only be around 500 articles instead of over a million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munich hilton (talk • contribs) 07:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Weak nom withdrawn (if that makes any sense). The comments of the editors who voted delete above were made after new users had provided sources. It'll take time to investigate how in-depth the coverage is.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP Prindle. He rules! His site is an all time classic.
KEEP, without a doubt. The man's been maintaining his obsessively prolific page since 1996 and certainly deserves some credit. In addition to writing thousands of reviews, he's also interviewed many notable artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.200.225.122 (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP Prindle. His longetivity and his pioneering of the form, in addition to the vast number of interviews, make him notable. Perhaps, only notable in terms of the internet and music history, but that's still notable than the Duke of Bulgaria in the early 1840's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.190 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. If the artists who grant him interviews are notable enough for Wikipedia pages, why shouldn't he be notable enough? That seems like a weird double-standard. I see no reason to delete his entry.
KEEP the man! He is important enough to link to this discussion, I think that importantness should be appreciated. Uzisuicide (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP this article! While Prindle may not be extremely well known, his writing is distinct and very influental, as can be proven by the number of copycat sites out there on the internet. His reputation is further cemented by the various published authors who have cited him in their writings. His writings and interviews remain relevant today, and there's no good reason not for this article to exist, regardless of how "obscure" the uninformed have decided he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.121.78 (talk) 06:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Are you kidding? For many, Mark Prindle is THE rock music critic of our age (90's-00's). He's regularly acknowledged (revered, openly emulated, etc.) by rock critics web-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.105.18 (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep it. Prindle is as notable as any pop music critic writing today, given the sheer scope of his website: he has reviewed entire catalogues of hundreds of artists, filling each review with insight and humor. As one of five people to sit through everything that Frank Zappa released, he deserves notice. As the man who dared to WRITE about everything Frank Zappa released, he deserves exaltation, or at least our deepest sympathy. His ouvre can be enjoyed as comedy, as one of the most extensive popular music resources online, or simply as an invaluable case study of obsessive-complulsive disorder. In any case, it's worth noting. If you're going to delete Wikipedia articles, at least start with the truly unremarkable ones, like South Dakota. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.180.242 (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP IT. I have used Mark Prindle's Wikipedia entry in the past, and found the experience to be both fun and enlightening. Why are you trying to deprive me of fun and enlightenment, only to gain a few credibility points as an encyclopedia which no one will grant you anyway due to your galling lack of completeness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.158.157 (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. As for internet music critics Prindle certainly is the most legendary one. As for third party sources, here's an interview with Prindle I made a couple of years ago for a Latvian web page: http://www.dialogi.lv/article.php?id=1583&t=0&rub=9. --Kazhe (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep. He's almost like a cult hero as far as internet music critics go. He's interviewed many musicians from bands that at very least have a strong fan base and puts a new look to the same old boring internet review. Removing this would be criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.188.209 (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Mark Prindle is an important and notable independent online critic (indeed, very likely the first major independent online critic ever). He has interviewed notable members of the music industry such as Richie Unterberger of All Music Guide and famous musicians such as Greg Puciato. He has also written for numerous publications. Removing this article would contradict the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to spread knowledge of noted events and people in our cultures.
KEEP IT! Mark Prindle.com has been and still is one of the most entertaining, comprehensive and, most of all, reliable musical resources on the internet. He always review records based on his point of view, but, since he's a music fan and a rabid collector he's developed a diverse taste, not only restricted to what might be his favorite genres (mainly Hardcore Punk, 70's Hard Rock and Amphetamine Reptile style Grunge), but to most Pop Rock based music, offering an insight that's way more reliable than say, Allmusic.com- KEEP IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.159.252 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. His site is obviously inspiration to countless other review sites that have since sprung up. Besides that his many interviews with many notable artists make his page just as important as many high profile magazines that contain similar content. The only difference is he doesn't get paid for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.100.9 (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP! Prindle is a legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.33.211 (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Even if he is virtually unknown outside that niche, Prindle pioneered amateurish music critic sites (basically containing subjective, down to the bones reviews made by a handful of unpaid individuals) and is a cult legend among the community around them. Besides, you can't deny the sheer originality and enjoyability of his writing style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.150.62 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Prindle's database is extremely well known within the record reviewing community and outwith, as seen by the multiple works that quote him. Known and loved by artists and music fans alike, his site is read by many for HIS content as opposed to research on the artists he covers (although this is another excellent reason to visit his site). His position as a "cult figure" should guarantee his place on wiki. As quote above, his website is accessed thousands of times a day, and there is no reason why a person with a following such as this who offers such a good service should not exist on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.99 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Prindle is not only the best reviewer in the world but also a great great writer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.41.233.2 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Actually, I am somewhat convinced by some of these arguments, and polling is not a substitute for discussion. For example Corpx above didn't go into much detail before 'voting' delete.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP IT! Becaue of his contributions, he's got a fanbase of readers that keeps growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.128.177.10 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP IT OBVIOUSLY!! Pooh....Prindle is the best rock reviewer on the net, and the pioneer of music reviews on the net which give a honest opinion about the music. No one has withstood the test of time as Prindle has, nor are anynone elses reviews half as interesting. A cult figure, he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.185.146 (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Mark Prindle is indeed notable; perhaps not in the ever-expanding universe of popular culture, but to those of us in the music industry who enjoy the internet (and in fact have done so for the past decade), he is an indispensable figure. There is no reason to delete a short article about a man who has contributed so much to rock music journalism. --207.30.185.10 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP THE PAGE. Mark Prindle is an invaluable resource for music fans in the internet age. Extremely notable in the underground rock world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.61.16 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep Mark Prindle's name brings up over 24,000 results on Google, many of which are links to webzines and not just his own page as someone above stated. Add these to the published mentions and citations, and I'd say he's "credible" enough to have an entry on Wikipedia. Either that or the only people Wikipedia considers good enough to have an entry are those who are household names. Obscure doesn't mean bad. --Drifting182 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. His name keeps growing, both by internet and word of mouth. When I talk rock music with friends, I recommend and quote his reviews most. On the internet his site is the standard for independant record reviewing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.120.41 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep the Prindle on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.140.56 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Prindle is cited in many books, and this alone makes him worthy of an article. He is also the most important, and possibly the first, independent reviewer online. Prindle's site offers comprehensive reviews, covering everything available on whomever he is reviewing. He has also interviewed dozens of notable hardcore and alternative artists, and these interviews should be considered. It is good to have information on him and his website on Wikipedia, even if he is not well-known amongst most people. I have yet to find a more objective or better source of music information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.41.82 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Mark Prindle isn't just some guy being funny, he knows music even better than any rolling stone, spin or whatever magazine is on the street. Give him a reading, he knows, and rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.154.187 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. The demand for third-party sources seems rather antithetical to what Prindle's site is all about; he has created his own self-contained online universe over the past 10+ years, and the sheer number of hits -- and on-site (not to mention ilx-style bulletin board) discussion -- he continues to receive is testament to how loyal those who stumble upon it become and remain. Reading through his interviews with A-list punks and post-punks, it's amazing to see how many are intimately familiar with his site going into the interview. Not only do a number of these people WANT to be interviewed by Prindle because of their awareness of his intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of their output, there are even those (like Jello Biafra) who REFUSE to be interviewed due to their familiarity with Prindle's work. I cannot think of another personal site that has such a reputation (and almost entirely a lofty one) within the listener, critic, and musician communities... it's quite an achievement, and -- this is the key in this debate -- Prindle has done it WORKING ENTIRELY ON HIS OWN. He has never been making money off of this venture, but he's kept at it for years and a far-reaching, international fanbase has found -- and bookmarked -- HIM over the last decade. As someone above said, Prindle's site is in many ways a Wikipedia of music criticism, and as such it would be a rather cruel (and absurd) irony if the most popular interactive online encyclopedia were to give the boot to the most popular interactive online music criticism site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.217.80 (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Lack of third party sources, nothing that seems to seperate him from every other review. The tons of IP's in this AFD make me wonder what messageboard was spammed with requests to support keeping it. TJ Spyke 07:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
KEEP. Third party references have been added to the entry, so what's the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.233.250.6 (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sing A Song of Patrick (Spongebob Episode)
- Sing A Song of Patrick (Spongebob Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and as it's only one particular episode, sources demonstrating notability are non-existent. NF24(radio me!) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable as an individual episode. Doesn't even seem worth merging to an episode list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable as an episode, content is largely useless as a merge to the episode list which has a decent synopsis of it - Dumelow (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the episode isn't notable, and the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction), and even if it didn't, it still goes against Wikipedia:Television episodes. -Alice2 (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No notability for this episode Corpx (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BAND . Keeper | 76 02:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Pirates Records
- Pirates Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete Although i like its name, it would seem to fail Wp:corp & Wp:music, article in no way asserts notability. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete A7 for not asserting notability, so tagged. A search for sources turned up absolutely nothing of merit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Automobile Industry in Germany
- Automobile Industry in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There is no point for the existence of a specific article for automobiles when the article "Industry in Germany" doesn't yet exist. Also, of all branches of German Industy, automobile is the only one to have a specific article, there is no reason for this either. If this article were to cover the "History" of Automobile Industry in Germany, I could understand the point of it existing. As of now this entire article is simply a list of 10 out of date tables that should be present elsewhere on Wikipedia. This lack of reason to exist is one reason why is has been so rarely edited. EconomistBR 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the tables themselves provide a certain level of valid information (even a few years old, they are not so old that you don't pick up a certain order of magnitude for production), but the article is entirely unsourced, and I don't know where the author got the information from. I am unsure on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It is a stub on a notable subject. Other stuff does not exist is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is the sort of topic that an encyclopedia needs to cover. Even if the article is not in good shape now, it can be improved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the automobile industry is very important in Germany and I am sure that a full, improved article would be welcomed by many. Keep and improve to a full article - Dumelow (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine I could vote to "keep" if either one of you Dumelow, Colonel Warden and Metropolitan90 makes a commitment to rewrite that article it may stay otterwise it should be deleted. So who is going to rewrite it? Or all you 3 will do is slap some TAGs and Templates on it?
Right now that article is utterly abandoned and rarely edited so much so that I removed a 4-month old vandalism on that page. The article's title is not being covered, there is simply the nice title followed by some out dated tables. EconomistBR (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep definitely a notable topic. Yes, I will undertake to improve and reference the article (I'm working on it now), but may I remind the nominator that AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline for Wikipedia. Neglect of an article is not a reason for deletion, and there's nothing wrong with placing nag tags and templates, in fact the lack of these on the article may have led to its neglect. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete What's the point of keeping a "notable topic" if that topic is: 1) abandoned 2) out dated 3) not coming close to adequately covering the subject at hand? It's better not to have an article at all. This article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned. It was therefore reducing the quality of this Encyclopedia.
Once someone had the time and will to find enough information he would create that article again and cover it in an appropriate manner. We are not obliged to keep or to have articles on every bit of " notable topic", that would be madness. EconomistBR (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This last !vote is from the nominator. If you take a look at the article now, I've rewritten to the most stringent referenced standards, and had done so an hour before you wrote the above comment. If you agree, perhaps you will consider withdrawing your nomination. --Canley (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It was notable when nominated, but it now meets any reasonable standard for a basic article. Nominator uses WP:EFFORT ("abandoned") and other arguments that are not reasonable rationales for deletion ("outdated", "not adequate" -- see {{update}}, {{expand}}). AFD is not cleanup, it is for articles that cannot reasonably be improved. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Definitely notable. It should probably be renamed Automobile industry in Germany (capitalization). Names of all such country articles should probably be standardized and the articles linked. There are also articles on Japanese automobile industry, Automobile industry in China, Automobile industry of the Soviet Union, Automobile industry in India, Automobile industry in Italy, Automobile Industry in the USA, British motor industry, Korean automobile industry.--Boson (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Based on the fact that Canley deleted and rewrote the entire article I am withdrawing the AfD nomination for this article. My nomination was justified, this article as it was supplied next to nothing in terms of useful information and was abandoned so much so that Canley deleted all the information that existed on that article. User Dhartung distorts my rationale, abandoned doesn't mean "nobody is working on it" and "not adequate" has never meant "expand". This idea that the topic notability alone entitles it to exist on Wikipedia is too simplistic, articles should be minimally informative for them to allowed to exist. EconomistBR (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 — Caknuck (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A Klass Records
- A Klass Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Anti-Kati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- GOD Rekidz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete minor indy label, no claim to notability per WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC, none of their bands/groups are on WP, blue links goto totally unrelated articles, like heartworm. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:CORP/WP:MUSIC, no notable releases on the label. The only valid bluelink, Anti-Kati, doesn't seem to be notable either, so I'm bundling it along with GOD Rekidz, another non-notable label. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - "non-notable" - That record label seems to be too small so it doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry EconomistBR (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Desilate
This article is written like a dictionary entry. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. All the earmarks of WP:MADEUP. Didn't bother to go through all the pages of ghits, but all the ones I saw seem to be misspellings of desolate. Deor (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Snowball delete. It's like the sort of fake word that 10-year-old boys make up and think it's cool to use. WP:WINAD is just the tip of the iceberg here. Should have been a WP:PROD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- But wait it's in Urban Dictionary! Oh, right. Delete—even if it's not made up, it's a neologism. Precious Roy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Opinions are divided, but no sources indicating that he meets WP:BIO are given in the article or the AfD. Fram (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
David Houston (actor)
- David Houston (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - fails WP:BIO. I disagree that voicing a character, even one like Bond, in a video game gets past the threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - By the logic indicated above, all videogame voice-acting roles --- no matter how prominent or small, whether voiced by well-known film actors or lesser-known performers --- should be removed from Wikipedia. The implication seems to be that voice acting is somehow unworthy of inclusion, even when it involves a famous character. If the "threshold" is based on the fact that it's a video game (i.e. "other productions"), it really shouldn't be necessary to point out that the videogame is an entertainment medium which now rivals film and TV --- both in terms of revenue generated and production values. Dh67 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO - I visited his web site at http://dhouston67.voices.com/ .
He is not notable, he simply is another actor who works on the show business but his name was tied to James Bond. If he were notable his name would have already been mentioned on the article Quantum of Solace (video game) which is the new James Bond game he is working on. Now, his name is not mentioned because he is just another guy working in the game. EconomistBR (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - With all due respect to the guidelines for deletion, the notability here stems from the fact that the Bond game is the first title in the 007 franchise to be published by Activision, one of the largest and most successful gaming companies in the world; that a relatively unknown voice actor would be cast as Bond in such a high-profile release is noteworthy in and of itself. To suggest that the actor himself is somehow unworthy of or disconnected from this notice violates all common sense. Dh67 (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Whether or not there is a "threshold" for voice actors or whether this one would eventually meet it or not, there do not seem yet to be reliable source around to move this beyond crystal-balling.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per author's request. Keeper | 76 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
- Newmeyer & Dillion LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability in secondary sources. Seems like a really spammy article trying to increase the Ghits for this particular rather anonymous lawfirm. Also, I have obvious WP:COI and {[WP:SPAM]] concerns. Keeper | 76 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello Keeper, I hope you are doing well. I would prefer that the entire article just be speedily deleted because I would rather not wait the five days. Can you please advise? Thanks. Steno895 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. If some editors wants some content to be merged, please contact me on my talk page.--JForget 00:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Tengshu
article is about a non-notable fictional character. Prod was removed. Mh29255 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages from the same novel because they don't meet the requirements of WP:FICTION:
- Gylfie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Coryn/Nyroc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Otulissa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Doc Finebeak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nyra (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all, overly detailed plot summaries written in-universe; they don't establish any real world notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all, perahps worth a mention or breif description on the novel's page but an individual article for each is too much - Dumelow (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete all. Perhaps merging relevant info with the novel's article. Rsazevedo msg 23:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless coverage from real world sources are found Corpx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge into a combination article. given that the series is apparently a New York Times bestselling book series, its important enough. I agree individual articles are excessive at this point. DGG (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. Enigmaman (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge i agree with DGG. Merging would be best. -munkee_madness talk 19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do not Delete Possibly merging would be better. The series is a New York Times Bestseller and its characters are important to the plot. All characters in the articles stated above are also relivent.-Myrrthe
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Tengshu and Doc finebeak are not vey productive. i think they should be deleted.70.217.148.84 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Burj (word)
Permastub of non-notable topic that just contains a definition with no sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:50, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC) 00:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and restore definition to intro of Burj dab page -- although perhaps a shorter definition there would be in order. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral but inclined to delete. I created this article so that I could clean the dab Burj; the info didn't seem to belong on the dab page and was, in any event, uncited but I was loath to lose it just in case ... I guess, on balance, my vote would be to delete it altogether and not transfer back to Burj because it wouldn't lead to an article, but I am pretty easy either way. Abtract (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and restore definition, without unsourced etymological speculation, to Burj. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:BIAS does not trump WP:WINAD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor a Thesaurus. The definition should be restored to Burj. Rsazevedo msg 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect. I've updated the Redwall (novel) page to contain the adapation information (it's the same book, but adapted with pictures) in lieu of the existing See also section. The new "Adaptation section" could use an expansion explaining how this new graphic version came about - reviews, illustrators, plot differences...). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Redwall Graphic Novel
- The Redwall Graphic Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete no sources, no indication that this is notable, fails WP:BOOK] Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable according to C5 of WP:BK...Furthermore, this article is only 4 days old. Give it some time. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep. Does indeed meet C5 of WP:BK. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep; Mainstream published graphic verson of mainstream published, award winning novel. Sources are readily available through a simple Google search. Needs a "references needed" tag, not deletion--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect until somebody cares to add content referenced by reliable sources. No need for a page holder Corpx (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep interview short piece, this is a notable author and the series is 20 years old, passes criteria 5 of WP:BK IMO. Someoneanother 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - WP:BK criterion five is not about notable authors in general, but about historically significant authors, e.g. whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study and I fail to see how this can apply to Brian Jacques. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - First search I tried: [41]. Granted, not on par with Mark Twain, but it does show that the suggestion that his works are a subject of common classroom study is not completely unfounded. I actually think C5 is a bit of a shoddy argument for this particular AFD. Mostly I brought it up because I didn't feel like seeking out evidence for notability; I didn't expect everyone else to follow suit. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting that it is at least recommend reading and possibly useful for the article on the author which is currently also void of any references. Meanwhile we can merge into Redwall (novel) since for all i understand from the current one liner, it is a derivative work.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply - First search I tried: [41]. Granted, not on par with Mark Twain, but it does show that the suggestion that his works are a subject of common classroom study is not completely unfounded. I actually think C5 is a bit of a shoddy argument for this particular AFD. Mostly I brought it up because I didn't feel like seeking out evidence for notability; I didn't expect everyone else to follow suit. -Verdatum (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong merge into Redwall (novel). The original novel is easily notable, but the graphic novel is not notable enough for a standalone article, and a section of the main article could easily handle this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into and to Redwall (novel). Unless and until the article is significantly expanded to a size beyond stub it isn't necessary to keep on its own. --BrokenSphereMsg me 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Red dot design award
- Red dot design award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete nn design award where the winners pay for the privilege of having the award appear on their product. Advertisingcruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:SPAM Doc Strange (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete WP:Spam; no external references to support that it is otherwise; no independent notability. Borders on CSD material.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Black Mesa Bible Camp
- Black Mesa Bible Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non notable summer camp, few unique google hits, advert for camp Montco (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and apparent WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for all above reasons. Achromatic (talk) 07:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough relevance, for all reasons above. Rsazevedo msg 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per WP:N - a slight numerical majority of keep votes which however (apart from Dhartung's) did not address the key issues raised by the nom and by delete voters. I looked at a few AfDs for other revues and similar types of shows for guidance. Orderinchaos 13:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Whirled News Tonight
- Whirled News Tonight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article about improv show that fails to assert notability per WP:N Mh29255 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable, secondary sources to show notability. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sources from the Chicago Daily Herald have been added, but internet links aren't provided and it doesn't have a wiki article, so I'm not sure if it's good enough to pass WP:N. If someone could provide online sources or a confirmation of the Herald sources, that'd invalidate my and the nom's concerns. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is an established, successful Chicago improv group with multiple press mentions.Wageless (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. More than 2,000 Google hits. The article could use some revamping, though. Rsazevedo msg 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 01:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just want to say--re Lifebaka's second comment above--I got the Daily Herald articles off of LexisNexis, which is unfortunately for subscribers only. An article on the Daily Herald is on WP at Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)--it was started in 1871. It's a credible source. There are also some "Whirled News" hits in the chicago Tribune archive. Hope this helps. Regards--Wageless (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - "Google hits" =/= "notablity", nor are unspecified references to a newspaper archive -- which, for we can tell, are simply archived entertainment listings. Actual MULTIPLE reliable sources -- not just a single, inaccessible suburban newspaper article -- are required, offering actual evidence of real-world impact and notice. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very weak keep. Borderline WP:LOCAL, but the NBC deal gives them some legitimacy. There was a Chicago SUn-Times article[42] and a review of a live show in Charleston, SC[43], the latter free to access for some editors. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Shipston Excelsior
- Shipston Excelsior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, moving to AFD for further discussion. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete Nothing at all to establish notability. Only Ghits were the team's own page and this article. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not played at a high enough level for notability. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not enough relevance. Rsazevedo msg 22:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not verifiable or notable using reliable sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Please ignore, I meant to post this on a different afd but must have had two windows open or something. Either way, I can't explain what it's doing here.
Delete; there is no assertion that the subject has ever played professional football, and no evidence that he has. Nowhere near the required level of notability. Robotforaday (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)- Given that this article is about a football club, your comment doesn't seem to make sense....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, no idea what that's doing there! I can only surmise that I was looking up a different player, and then returned to this to comment and remarked on the wrong afd altogether. Splendid. Robotforaday (talk) 10:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given that this article is about a football club, your comment doesn't seem to make sense....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete NN. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 20:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Rack Attack
This article has been tagged for speedy delete and prodded for being SPAM. Original author has not complied completely with <hang-on> request but makes appropriate comment seeking assistance. That said it should got to AfD for consideration as to whether it is blatant advertising or not. --VS talk 07:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note - editor had a relationship with a very similar article titled Rack N Road which has been speedily deleted 3 times over the past 12 months.--VS talk 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It does have the article in the Denver Post. But what's a gutter-less raingutter? Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete does not meet WP:CORP. To quote, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." One Denver Post article does not meet these requirements. --mariusstrom 05:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per MariusStrom -Verdatum (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, this is essentially an advertisement. TJRC (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.