Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 20

< March 19	March 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing verifability. - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frag-Ops

Unreal Tournament mod that doesn't appear to be particular notable. Its sourceless and googling doesn't bring up any reliable sources. PROD was removed with edit summary: "Removed the note for deletion, for this page is to be used for providing small references related to the game and otherwise, for it is to be experiencing a revival" - I have no idea what that means. It has also been previously deleted as "nn/spam". Delete as failing WP:ATT. Wickethewok 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to a lack of third party sources to establish notability. The awards and distinctions are not notable enough to confer notability to the mod. Leebo ^T/C 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to assert notability. WP:N, WP:RS--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability? Mrmoocow 10:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads sort of like a game guide, which I'm sure Wikipedia is not supposed to be. Resurgent insurgent 12:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another game-mod article. Unreal Tournament itself is plenty notable, this isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I can fix the article, it isn't just a mod, the game was ported to the Reality Engine from Artificial Studios for commercial release as Frag Ops: Zero Squad. That fell through with 75% of the code done when the project leader Squirrel Zero (Matt) walked away. You can find out about the mod from Beyond Unreal's Frag Ops post mortem. The project leader contributed Realtime Shadows code and vehicle code that later showed up in other UT2K4 mods. The original Unreal Tournament 2004 version is being updated for relaunch by Scry (formerly Squirrel Zero) here. I can build it into a notable article but that doesn't really matter now, the consensus has it for deletion. --Basique 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can always have it moved to your userspace, work on it there, and then have it undeleted at WP:DRV. Wickethewok 15:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me working on it here User:Basique/Workspace. --Basique 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done, can my updated version be fasttracked in? --Basique 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously lacking notability and it fails WP:V because of its lack of sources, just external links.Telly addict 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NOT as a game mod, fails WP:ATT for Basique's assertions, and even if correct, heck, the video game industry dumps would-be games all the time; ample precedent holds that they generally aren't notable. Given that the article represents all the mainspace edits of its creator as well, add possible WP:COI to the till. RGTraynor 16:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. . 11kowrom 21:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N and Wikipedia:Attribution. Ronbo76 00:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. -- Wenli 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not policy, but WP:V sure as hell is. Cynical 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete, default keep -- although the arguments for keeping were more thoroughly documented. Now suggest that all references mentioned are placed in the article. Bubba hotep 09:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evol Intent

Per WP:MUSIC. A quick Google search failed to reveal the group's significance, and they have not been on any charts. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another idiotic band article. YechielMan 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)*Delete per WP:MUSIC. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepThe appearance on the Need for Speed game provides some notability but the article needs better sourcing and citations. StuartDouglas 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree per WP:MUSIC, defintely failing that.Telly addict 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Allmusic.com returns only a single release attributed to Evol Intent [1] that received very little in the way of buzz or sales. The lead Google hits are their own website and their Myspace page, always a deadly harbinger of non-notability. RGTraynor 16:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:BAND. Ronbo76 00:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know anything about this band, but from what I can tell, they're signed to and have released material on Renegade Hardware [2], which at least fulfills one requirements of WP:BAND. I, and I think everyone else, would appreciate therefore if the Delete votes were more than just "Fails WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC." Let's not forget WP:JUSTAPOLICY. That said, I'm abstaining from voting for the time being. Rockstar915 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well ... JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, an opinion statement from a handful of editors no more or less pertinent than yours or my opinion. That being said, what criteria listed in WP:BAND do you claim this group has met? Just signing onto a label or "releasing material" doesn't suffice, by a long shot. RGTraynor 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said before, I'm abstaining from voting. I'm not making a claim about anything regarding the band -- I just wanted to point out that the AfD is meant to be a conversation, not a straight up vote. And right now, it's just a vote. People are just citing a policy but not what's IN the policy, and although WP:JUSTAPOLICY is just an essay, that doens't mean it's wrong. That's all. Rockstar915 16:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - The label isn't even particularly notable itself. It's some unknown independent label; we're not talking about Virgin Records or something. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:music states that they can have releases on a major indie label. Virgin is not an independent label and Evol Intent is obviously not a group that would be featured on a primetime "build a star" game show. Renegade is one of the most important labels in the culture and has been around for 12 years. Here is a discography. http://www.discogs.com/label/Renegade+Hardware —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ab3 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep evol intent is very established and more than qualifies for wikipedia. please research before you comment. please see my concerns below.
STRONG DELETE - not notable and probably self-promotional. Ward3001 22:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in reliable source.

many tours in various countries including america, france, england, switzerland, slovenia, germany, and austria. http://www.evolintent.com/banners/evolintentloveseurope.jpg

Lacks a reliable source. The band's own website does not qualify.

Comment Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

renegade hardware. http://www.discogs.com/release/557675 human imprint. http://www.discogs.com/release/297538

The album listed on the second link has no content by Evol Intent.

- - it seems as if people are reading what they want. If you open the second link you'll notice two tracks by EI. CD1 mixed by Dieselboy (one of the most well-known DJ/producers in the scene contains Evol Intent on track-11. CD2 track-4 contains another Evol Intent track.
Comment 6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A21300 creative loafing is one of the most established local happenings journals in atlanta.

This review from a website (whose own notability is unestablished) makes no actual claims that Evol Intent is the "most prominent representative" of the local scene. It just likes EI's music.

Comment 10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

(BBC Radio 1)

No evidence of this claim submitted.

Comment 11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

(BBC Radio 1)

No evidence of this claim submitted.

Comment Featured on a multi-platform videogame release soundtrack Need For Speed: Most Wanted

http://music.ign.com/articles/658/658285p1.html http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200510/N05.1013.1241.43093.htm http://xbox.about.com/od/news/a/nfsmwnews54.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ab3 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Here's verification regarding playtime on BBC. British Broadcasting is quite a large radio station.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/maryannehobbs/tracklistingarchive.shtml?20051011
Comment RinseMag is a popular magazine in the breakbeat culture. This month's issue features a cover story of Evol Intent noting the producers as a driving force in North America.
http://www.rinsemag.com/press/RNS026/
Comment This article confirms international touring.
http://www.drumandbass.ch/online/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=164&Itemid=32
Comment This link contains information supporting a nominee for best breaks/dnb tracks in the Winter Music Conference.
http://www.wmcon.com/idmanominees06.htm Ab3 13:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as one of the "resident experts" in the DJ/Rave field on wiki, I believe this band passes our notability criteria with flying colors... Per WP:MUSIC:

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart.

Has charted several times on BBC Radio 1.

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

Their remixes have appeared on several gold selling albums.

3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country

Has toured in US, Canada, UK, Germany, Russia, France, and Belgium (that I am aware of).

4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

This one is hard to respond to because most people wouldnt consider even the largest selling Drum and Bass labels "a major label" or "important indie label" however they are signed to, and have had tracks published on one of the larger US and one of the larger UK DnB labels (Renegade Hardware discography, Human Imprint discography)

5. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

Not applicable

6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Has become one of the most prominent names in the American Drum and Bass scene.

7. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury award.

Not applicable

8. Has won or placed in a major music competition.

Not applicable

9. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show.

Need for Speed: Most Wanted soundtrack

10. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

Has seen significant rotation on BBC Radio 1

11. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio or TV network.

Had a 1 hour set on the Breezeblock on BBC Radio 1.

Having passed numerous criteria on WP:MUSIC, they qualify per our standards. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything User:Alkivar said. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the commentary by Alkivar above, this is pretty much an open and shut case. RFerreira 04:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, blatant copyright violation. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice 4 candidates

The Apprentice (US Season 4) from record's being inauspicious. The GFDL violation.--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Naohiro19(Talk Page/Contributions/Do you send mail for me?) 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the nom is complaining that it shouldn't have been split from the main article, but the whole thing is copyvio from, eg, [3] anyway. FiggyBee 01:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you don't even have to go on Google to check for copyvio! Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 07:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keene High School

~~Virtually no verifiable content, and no sources provided. Full of original research.~~ --Slowking Man 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks much better now; I'd say to keep it. Since other users have expressed varying opinions, however, I'll leave this open. --Slowking Man 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this article has one or more reliable sources, it is not worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep: Sources have been provided. No more original research. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 02:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no reason to assume that this school is of any importance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Keep There is no consensus that high schools are or are not inherently notable, as evidenced by the many high school AfDs closed as "no consensus". ~~But I fall on the weak side of delete on this one because if it really does have an award winning music program, it might be sufficiently notable. In any case, we need some WP:A to keep this.~~ This article, however, satisfies WP:N and WP:A in a couple of areas, so it should be kept. Nice job on this one, by the way. --Butseriouslyfolks 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I want to say "delete" because there are no sources provided. But I want to say "keep" because it claims to be award-winning in music. But there are no sources for that, so it might be OR. Then again, sources can be gathered through a local newspaper, student government newspaper publications, and probably the site of the music awards they won. :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep primary sources are acceptable in articles about themselves. School's own website provides plenty of reference for the content in the article. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are acceptable as additional sources, not as the main or only sources used for establishing notability. Otherwise it would be very easy to make hoaxes or false claims to get into Wikipedia (I'm not saying that that is happening here, I just want to point out that using primary sources to establish notability and to assess importance is strictly to be avoided). Fram 10:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not being used to establish notability, its being used to verify content within the article. By using your same logic you'd deny whitehouse.gov as a reliable source in an article on the White House. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ I agree with what User Ed said, the school might be notable (re: music) but it definately needs more than just the schools own website. A few more references and ill change to keep. LordHarris 06:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been improved, has quite a few sources, its notable.LordHarris 02:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now, delete. Seems to be non-notable. If more sources are found, especially about the music part of the school, then keep. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no indication of notability in the article -- Chris 73 | Talk 11:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing in the article that establishes notability (which means that there is no way of finding reliable sources). Pax:Vobiscum 11:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Keene, New Hampshire since most of the stuff here is pretty basic, and I am unconvinced that information about school clubs is altogether encyclopedic. Nevertheless, info on a town's education system is valid so I'll oppose outright deletion. The wish to have independent sources is mostly one of verifiability as far as I can see. Unless someone is seriously contesting the existence of this school, I cannot see why the sources used should be a serious issue. (Dividing schools into "notable" and "non-notable" based on whether a newspaper has or has not happened to write something about them is a poor practice, which is the very reason I have disputed the WP:N guideline.) There does exist an independent source that Barack Obama has used the school to stage a "town hall event" [4], but it is not really enough to establish a fully independent article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my usual reasons. Nothing on the page appears to be unverifiable or original research by the definitions of those terms given on the appropriate pages. Please do not confuse lack of sources with unverifiability and original research - this is explained quite clearly on WP:ATT. -- Necrothesp 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not original research, but that doesn't mean this article doesn't fail WP:ATT. "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." and "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." This article is not based on any published secondary sources at all, and the claims made are not only descriptive. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, not a secondary source, and thus this article as it stands has no place here. Fram 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible" (italics mine). Nowhere does it say that articles based only on primary sources should be deleted. That is a leap of logic that is unsupported in the policy. The existence of the school is easily verifiable, therefore there is no reason to delete the article. This is a phony deletionist argument that I have seen all too often in the past. -- Necrothesp 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference about a talk by a politician which took place at the school. --Eastmain 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added an external link to the Great Schools Web site. Since every or nearly every high school, at least in the United States, has its own Web site with information on the school, and since the Great Schools Web site has information and individual web pages on all or nearly all high schools in the country, you can always assume that a U.S. high school has at least two sources of information on it, plus whatever you can dig up on Google, Google News and Google News Archives. In addition, with the "No Child Left Behind" act, state departments of education are increasingly posting statistics on high schools on the state DOE Web sites. That should be enough notability for all public high schools in the U.S. It is hard for a public U.S. high school not to be notable by Wikipedia's definition. I think the only reason to redirect a high school article is lack of interest by editors in building up the article and letting the article become a vandal magnet. I argue here that all high schools are inherently notable. Noroton 21:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up schools are notable but this article is a mess of original research much of which ought to be deleted IMO. Iridescenti 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — satisfactory. — RJH (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as is more than adequately describes the school, and there are ample reliable and verifiable sources available, that have already been added and will be added to the article to further demonstrate notability. Alansohn 02:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable school and the article now has the necessary secondary sources. TerriersFan 18:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Great Schools website. As Noronton says, it lists essentially every school. The information it lists is posted by the school, and the word "great" in the title is an obvious misnomer. It is therefor an uncritical list, and inherently trivial, and cannot be used as a RS for any purpose. Ditto with DOE Websites: they list every school. Noronton argues that this makes all schools notable. I'd say that this is just about as notable as the mere listing on Amazon makes a book notable. They are both indiscriminate lists. The listings on these sites are trivial in the WP sense. Now, if something in such a listing is truly noteworthy, and confirmed by independent sources, that is another matter. DGG 22:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems that the article could be made better by using references and cleanup. -- Wenli 03:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable. - Richard Cavell 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the article describes the subject in a notable light and is adequately sourced according to our attribution requirements. Burntsauce 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was shoot in the head with an Benelli M3. Headshot!! Daniel Bryant 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood Network

Vanity article on Australian Counter-Strike server. The 1107 member figure is based on spurious info introduced by 211.30.128.188 (talk · contribs), sFn website suggests six members at most. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable sources to establish the notability of the group. Leebo ^T/C 02:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers displayed in article are based on recordings from the Seafood Network's counterstrike server ranking system. Suggested six members are leaders who work on inmrovement of the Seafood Network and administration of servers. There are in fact many more members than this as suggested by information from server console. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.137.167 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007

Comment this is mostly irrelevant to the concerns being addressed, which have to do with a lack of sources. Can you provide any third party sources that talk about the group? Leebo ^T/C 10:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Leebo StuartDouglas 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not notable. Acalamari 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sow the ocean with salt: This near-to-spurious vanity article is about a website that hasn't seemingly been updated in over a year, according to its main page. There are zero hits on Australian Google for it, if you leave out its own server [5]. Fails WP:ATT, NN, and probably WP:BULLSHIT as well. Nice try, guys. RGTraynor 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:ORG. Ronbo76 00:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as new sources cited and various searches have failed to come up with any. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...maelgwn talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously nn. Lankiveil 11:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Not suitable for an encyclopedia. -- Wenli 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, does not meet any of our article standards. Burntsauce 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete' John Reaves (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hondahead

DictDef, in violation of WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term is for a "gearhead" who specializes in Hondas. In other words, there could be a Fordhead, a Toyotahead, an AmericanMotorCorporationhead, and let's not forget Headrolet. Sorry for that last one. Action Jackson IV 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be. Delete per nom. FiggyBee 01:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete complete nonsense, meets CSD G1. Please at least {{subst:prod}} it, if possible V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 01:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nonsense. So tagged. WjBscribe 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq

Contains speculation, original research, non-encyclopedic, makes many claims not atributable to anyone. It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term. It also violates guidelines for living persons. Also uses weasel words. It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. It is also redundant, and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research. Jfrascencio 01:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we also have an AfD on Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq from a couple of days ago. FiggyBee 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference All are good reasons to keep working on the article, none are good reason's for deletion. Every country has an article on human rights Category:Human rights by country. The big ones are broken down into smaller articles like this one is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and reference. What the article was previously named is of little importance. Better to put such an obviously important topic on WP:AID than resort to deletion because it has some problems. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Give it some time, looks like there is a good faith effort here to add reputable secondary sourced citations... Smee 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are obvious attempts to make this more encyclopedic. Important subject worthy of coverage and this article is getting there. StuartDouglas 09:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of deletion there should be a main article about Human rights in Iraq and this article can be one of its sub-article. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article at the moment looks very much like OR and without the references lacks the NPOV. Condemnation has no place in an encyclopaedia. I notice the article mentions arms dealings with Russia, China and France but fails to note Britain and the USA doing the same. In the current form the article is quite inappropriate. Suriel1981 11:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with the other two human rights in Iraq articles to one article, as per Sa.vakilian --Martin Wisse 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be brought up to NPOV which would include renaming to Human Rights in Iraq. There is hardly an indication that human rights were more respected before Saddam nor are there any that they are after Saddam Alf^Photoman 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alf Photoman. The text is also collection pure OR. Pavel Vozenilek 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete but allow recreation~~ Keep but clean-up Valid topic, obviously, but poorly handled. Pitifully few references. ~~Until someone wants to sort out the whole "Human rights in Iraq" series of articles mess by doing some proper research and reliable sourcing, it should be deleted.~~ Looks like the mess is being sorted. --Folantin 15:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading the talk page, this series of articles evolved from a single article on human rights in Iraq; a decision was made to split them up. It would probably be a bad idea to merge them back against the wishes of the editors. The POV of the article could certainly use improvement; a comparison of human rights in SH's Iraq to rights in other Arab/Muslim countries of the time might be instructive, for instance. Brianyoumans 19:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are good points, but even though there are obvious chronological reasons to split the topmost article this way, it also results in a quasi-POV fork, with the pro-invasion group editing this article and the anti-invasion group the other, both seeking to prove their convictions correct. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rightness or wrongness of the U.S. invasion isn't going to rest on human rights violations (other factors are involved: whether the invasion works in accomplishing various goals, whether the costs outweigh the benefits or vice versa, whether the invasion had to be done to stop Saddam's regime from using or getting WMDs or being or becoming a base for terrorists -- all sorts of reasons were given by Bush and others for the war; even bringing democracy to Iraq isn't quite the same issue as how bad the human rights record there was). And there's nothing inherently POV-forkish about separating the vast subject of Iraqi human rights violations into regime periods, since the situation obviously changed with different regimes: Before Saddam human rights were in various states; during Saddam's regime that regime was responsible for a certain level of human rights; after Saddam responsibility shifted elsewhere. The subject naturally divides that way. There is no inherent contradiction in one article describing the Saddam regime's human rights record and articles that describe human rights before or after, and no benefit to combining them that I can see. There is, without a doubt, plenty of sourceable information out there. The subject of the article is too important to delete. Too bad it hasn't been cared for better. The best argument for deleting, to my mind, is that the article shows no promise of being well-edited, despite it's importance and appropriateness.Noroton 16:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's nothing irrepairable here and the subject is both noteworthy and sourceable (and any comparison of Saddam's regime with any other regime in the Middle East would show just how evil he was, with hundreds of thousands murdered). Noroton 01:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He was certainly no Boy Scout, but compare for instance the violent suppression of revolt in Syria (involving thousands of deaths), the actions of the army in the Algerian civil war in the 90s, Morocco's actions in the Western Sahara, Turkey's behavior in Turkish Kurdistan, and so on. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but his actions occurred in an area of the world where Western-style human rights are not generally respected, and it is fairly common for governments to use force, sometimes brutal force, to suppress opposition, especially from minority populations. We should view him in context. Brianyoumans 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't the place for political discussion. As for the article? It doesn't have proof of what it claims. Amnesty International style condemnations are unencyclopaedic. Suriel1981 16:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also there are no articles on Human Rights in Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mubarak's Egypt, Musharraf's Pakistan, Sharon's Israel, Castro's Cuba, Shah's Iran, Bush's United States, Ceasar's Roman Empire, Alexander's Greek Empire, Xerxes Persian Empire, or any other article about human rights in any other leader leader's country article. --Jfrascencio 22:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most of the reasons given for deletion are patently invalid:

"Speculation, original research, -- It is merely the collection of published accounts, as with all good WP articles. Calling it speculation seems POV.

"non-encyclopedic" also POV -- its a subject of general interest about which factual material can be found.

'"makes many claims not atributable to anyone" -- Yes, section 1 does need specific sources for every allegation. But they are finadable, so not a reason for deletion.

"It was originally an article called "The Dirty Dozen" which was a made up term nobody uses and gives no sources for such a term." It fgives the sources, and any number of news stories could be added.

It mentions a book about "The Dirty Dozen", which then became a movie, which has nothing to do with Iraq. When referring to Iraq (Iraq's Dirty Dozen), the source of the term is U.S. officials. Just because certain national officials use a term, doesn't mean there should be an article about (i.e. The Imperialist Regime, see no article about it) --Jfrascencio 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It also violates guidelines for living persons." Sourced reports on major newsworthy criminals are not BLP violations--but agreed, it does need sources.

" Also uses weasel words." Thats about the opposite of the previous reason.

" It also not a person, place, thing, or specific event requiring an entry into an encyclopedia. " Another way of saying nonencyclopedic, and I think almost everyone would say just the opposite. That other parties in iraq may have continued some such practices is no reason to exclude this part of the story.

"It is also redundant," apparently meaning the subject is treated elsewhere. But a collected article of this sort makes sense.

"and serves no purpose. It is basically an article for original research" All said before, and all wrong.

That said, I think it is an outrageously unsourced article for a topic such as this, and there's a lot to be deleted from it. Eds. who workecd on an article on such a topic should try to make it really solid. Thats why I said "weak". And because of the title, but it's hard to think of a clearer one./ DGG 22:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in Iraq. Don't need to divide up articles like this.--Sefringle 04:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not OR anymore and it's important enough to keep it separate from Human rights in Iraq as a sub-article. We can put a summary of this article there.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now, I think this article should be merged into Human rights in Iraq. No reason to single out a single leader that only ruled for 20 years, or Wikipedia will be littered with Human rights in (leader's name)(leader's country) articles. The only reason this article exists is in part of a demonization campaign to promote war. --Jfrascencio 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No good reasons to delete. Lots of problems means lots of fixing. The subject is very important. SmokeyJoe 09:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is also entirely negative and condemning. (NPOV) It makes no mention of positive human rights practices such as secular government, woman's rights like driving and voting (which isn't allowed in Saudi Arabia), rights given in the constitution, amnesty for those imprisoned, the rights of Kurds to their language being official in Kurdish areas (In Turkey, the Kurdish language is illegal), etc. --Lft6771 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason not to. Robbskey 22:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted - blatant hoax. Newyorkbrad 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North American Maintenance of Bear-Life Association

How this hoax has managed to survive without references on Wikipedia since August 2006 is beyond me. [6] The name returns 6 hits on Google, all of which are various mirrors of the Wikipedia article. [7] We need a speedy deletion criterion for non-notable hoaxes like this, and we need one fast. RFerreira 01:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete "NAMBLA" is the giveaway. I agree - there shoud be a speedy category for blatant hoaxes other than nonsense. Croxley 02:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mindbridge Foundation

Non-notable organization. Google search on name returns only 62 unique hits on 204 returns, mostly simple listings/directories outside of primary source. Conventions sponsored by group *might* be notable, but group itself does not have citations to establish notability. Delete. MikeWazowski 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient signs of notability. StuartDouglas 10:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete. This organization has no notability outside of the conventions it hosts. RGTraynor 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mindbridge is a pretty notable organization. Kopf1988 03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and you believe this because....? Please provide at least *some* kind of citations to refute the argument posted above. MikeWazowski 03:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several reasons, such as its branch from the founding by an award winning author, its several conventions, and its history. This article also inherits the notability of the SFLIS (unless we create an article about them and sub Mindbridge there??) Together they're notable enough at least. Kopf1988 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Science Fiction League of Iowa Students" brings back even fewer returns (37 unique on 54 total) than does the Mindbridge Foundation. Had Haldeman actually *founded* this group, that might be one thing, but according to your text, his only connection is that he taught a class that some of the people that *did* found the group attended, plus they named it after something he wrote. How exactly does that confer notability on either the SFLIS or Mindbridge? Again, without reliable third-party sources to back up any of this, it's a *very* tenuous claim, at best, and I remain unconvinced. MikeWazowski 04:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not a reliable test on its own. As for your proof, how about some mentions here and here. I'm sure those can be construed in a variety of ways, but the easiest thing to see is that he either founded or played a large role in the founding. 'Nuff said. Kopf1988 06:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is nothing but a page full of links, and proves nothing about the Mindbridge Foundation. Your second, while it mentions Haldeman, does not mention the Mindbridge Foundation anywhere on the page, so I hardly see how that proves anything in regards to the notability of the Mindbridge Foundation, which is what this discussion is about. You'll also note that I'm not using the low number of Google returns as the sole basis of my decision - I'm using the fact that very few, if any, of them are from reliable sources. There is a difference. MikeWazowski 07:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Lots of outfits hold conventions, and as far as Joe Haldeman goes, notability isn't contagious. RGTraynor 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ORG is a guideline, based on consensus(which is also disputed). As such, you can go around beating people in the head with it. Kopf1988 04:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot come as a surprise that an encyclopedia that works on consensus has numerous guidelines that are, unsurprisingly enough, arrived upon through consensus. If you prefer, I can beat you over the head instead with WP:ATT, which is official policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source." RGTraynor 15:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG; specifically, the absence of any independent third party nontrivial secondary sources.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party refs not notable. NBeale 06:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sawaru

Unreleased film, no assertion of notability. Vanity article, created by involved party (band member of Evil Adam), who has previously created vanity article on band. Full of NN redlinks. Drat (Talk) 01:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability with tertiary sources, while also showcasing a conflict of interest. The overwhelming red links are evidence enough that no one involved in this film has yet achieved notability, even though that's not wholly relevant to the article itself. Leebo ^T/C 02:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Evidence of the Troma release would provide some notability, but at the moment there is no such verifiability StuartDouglas 10:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete movie not on IMDB, thus failing my bare-minimum criteria for films. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Troma, the one saving factor for this entry, is not releasing the film. At least not according to anything I found. And the film's not even on IMDB, and we all know how easy it is to get on that (*cough* $50 *cough*). :) Rockstar915 01:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special cases. Red wikilinks indicate as per nominator's assertion that someone is creating an article to specifically promote this unreleased DVD. Ronbo76 14:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reputable references and is not notable. -- Wenli 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not on IMDB. --Anthony5429 18:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, not a single delete other than the nom. Steve _(Stephen)^talk 22:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Week in the Woods

non notable children's book. Article is unsourced, other than publisher's site. This is not an independent source. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. True the book has won some children's awards by library consortiums, but these do not lend the book notability because the awards themselves are non-notable (they don't even have Wikipedia articles). Speedy deleted 3 times, most recent speedy overturned at Deletion review Nardman1 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely absurd at this point. A book which is the winner of countless statewide awards by one of the most important authors for young people in current times. Wasn't able to force a speedy, is now bringing it here? Reviews from all the typical book presses can be dug up if I can find the time at work this week, but it's honestly not that pressing right now. Meets book notability, won piles of awards, enough already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantially per badlydrawnjeff. This nomination serves no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 02:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're showing bias. If this were an article on a Pokemon character or a rap album people would be calling for the article's deletion or at least proof the awards were notable. Nardman1 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Bias in favor of what? Newyorkbrad 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Bias because it's a book when a music album would face the actual standards Wikipedia has. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So let me get this straight: you're saying WP is biased toward books and against music?!? That's simply absurd. In fact, if anything the opposite is true. For example, looking at Barnes & Noble's current top selling fiction books, only 2 of the top 5 have articles, wheras 4 of the top 5 in B&N's top music list do. Albums by notable artists aren't deleted, nor should books by notable authors be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to ask - why this book? Of all the books out there to be fixated on, why this one? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I caught this book on recent changes a few weeks ago and marked it for deletion. I noticed its re-creation on my watchlist. It was non notable then and and non notable now. Nardman1 02:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notability is apparent in the numerous awards. How many more awards should be needed to satisfy notability? Leebo ^T/C 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are very few sources for these "awards" outside libraries and the books themselves. No NYT articles or other indicators of notability. The awards themselves are non notable, making them worthless as notability indicators. Nardman1 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep notable book by a notable author. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The redlinks for the awards chiefly indicate a systemic bias rather than non-notability. If it were just one statewide award I'd be a bit more meh, as statewide awards are not the Newbery or Caldecott, but with this many it's surely notable. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the awards may be minor but there's plenty of them, which comfortably satisfies notability. — Krimpet (talk/review) 06:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with above, however, this article has no citations, and that should be changed... Smee 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously notable book by a notable author StuartDouglas 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per others' reasoning above --Martin Wisse 13:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets 36 Google news results with a careful query [8], including Wash. Post and Detroit Free Press just on the first page. Per looking at these results and the above comments, this is apparently a plenty notable book in its genre. --W.marsh 14:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is just silly. This is a (multiple) award-winning book by a very notable author, part of a long-running and bestselling series. On the DRV, the deleting admin reported "...called up a trusted reading specialist friend of mine, and was told that this was a high acclaimed book." I simply cannot fathom the reasoning behind this nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newyorkbrad. Acalamari 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What in the pluperfect hell? What the hell does nom mean, this isn't an independent source? Simon & Schuster is a lot more respected and ironclad a source than Wikipedia is, come to that. This book carries an Amazon sales rank of 50,000, its reviews on the Amazon site are from (among others) Publishers' Weekly, the Amazon.com editorial staff, School Library Journal, Booklist and AudioFile. This hits Criteria #1 (on the reviews alone) and #4 at WP:BK and meets the WP:BK threshold standard just from the libraries in Norfolk and Plymouth Counties in Massachusetts alone, let alone anywhere else. Given nom's continuing and vehement defense of this absurd nomination, admins would be well advised to take a hard look at WP:POINT and/or whether this is a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 20:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded..., and... - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per every comment above. - Mtmelendez ^{(TALK|UB|HOME)} 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep Gnan garra 13:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian novelists

Nothing more than an alphabetical list that is less than the associated category, Category:Australian novelists. Unreferenced per WP:BLP; even for seemingly uncontroversial lists this is still a requirement. There are better places for redlinks such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do Delete --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep am slowly adding dates, & note, no previous attempt has been made to fix the 'problem' by even suggesting changes such as periodising etc. this should have been done 1st. regards blp, irrelevant as 'novelist' is not a criticism. ⇒ bsnowball 09:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP is not "irrelevent". Every biographical fact we record should be backed by a reference. Who are we to say what is controversial or not? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless... another person or the author can verify & make the list more interesting than its category. See one of the best lists (;)) on Wikipedia as a guideline - List of dinosaurs. That my friend is a list! If this list can be 1) Cited. 2)Expanded. 3)Made interesting. Then I'd say keep, but until then, delete... Spawn Man 09:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what a request for expansion is for - not an AfD. I'm sure people will do that if you support it, given bsnowball's pledge above. JRG 22:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is enough. Adding dates and other useless info isn't really going to improve the usability of the list.--Dacium 10:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an article for List of novelists by nationality so this article can be remained, but it should be improved.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 10:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly a great list, but dates and redlinks save this from being entirely redundant with a category. The redlinks should be in the article space and not Wikipedia space, because if someone searches for "Russell Braddon" without any clue to who this person is, they should at least be given a search result (hope our search function is working) to this page where they will at least find that the person is an Australian novelist. It is sparse info until we can get a full article, but I think lists in article-space (viewed by many) are more fertile breeding grounds for new articles than a corresponding list in Wikipedia-space (viewed only by members of the Australia or literature WikiProjects). Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But how would they know that Russell Braddon was in any way notable, and not just a vanity entry, and what references are there for him being a novelist? --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the caveats added above. --Martin Wisse 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there cannot be any reliable reference for the list. That means it attracts marginal cases and vanity edits. I know a "novelist" who once had a novel published on the internet (I think it was not self-published, but still not available offline). For the "Russell Braddon" example, the other 7 search results are more useful than this one. Bsnowball, if you're doing the research to fill out this table, why not write a stub for the article instead, citing the references you found? Is Arthur W. Upfield vanity or an important part of literary history - inclusion in this list doesn't tell us. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment how about what should have been done before afd? what would a 'proper' list look like? periodisation? (pre-fed, pre/postwar; i am prepared to do this if i know the list won't be deleted anyway) adding informative 'comments'? (also re scott, i'm maintaining the list, so at the moment i decide what's vanity ;) but as a rule of thumb, if they've got a few books in the nla catalogue i leave them in. what do you mean, stub for what article?) ⇒ bsnowball 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grouping by time doesn't make a difference to my opinion. It might for others. What I meant was to write a stub for the novelist at the time you've done enough research to verify their notability. A stub containing: Name (dates of birth/death) is/was an Australian novelist. Some key fact about their life or writing, bibliography, reference list, categories and stub template should be plenty to keep them from ending up here, demonstrates the notability, and gives other editors somewhere to hang any additional information they find. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful list being maintained. I assume Arthur W. Upfield is a reference to Arthur Upfield who was a popular writer responsible for the Boney books. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep compares well to List of English novelists, however it could be improved with additional summary information (date of birth/death, most notable title / genre)Garrie 01:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to refute that concern. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that is true - IMO lists in themselves are only useful in comparison to similar lists. A list of Australian novelists - if it is the only list of novelists - is rubbish. As one of a group of novelists by nationality it becomes much more meaningful.Ga rr ie 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bsnowball's pledge to clean up the article and reference it; and the fact that lists of novelists of other nationalists also exist which would make our Australian content worse than it is at present. This is not really an inexhaustive list: it takes a bit of doing to become a novelists well-known enough to have an article on Wikipedia. JRG 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Scott.--cj | talk 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Australian writers. Generalize it. Usedup 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad idea, then it becomes even more impossible to make a comprehensive list. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if novelists, literary critics, nonfiction writers and such were separated by section headings? Usedup 16:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list is defined and possible to complete. --Peta 03:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.