- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was moot. The article has been deleted under the speedy deletion process according to category A7 by TexasAndroid. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cosmin Ghiurau
- Cosmin Ghiurau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet another guy who feels he's important enough to have an encyclopedia entry -- uses {{Infobox Celebrity}} no less, denoting a healthy ego. Well, why should this be deleted? First, all the external links are self-published; there are no third-party sources as demanded by WP:V (an official policy). Second, Google is no big improvement: less than 700 hits, and (aside from a PR release) all either self-published or trivial mentions: non-notable. So, given the failure to comply with WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, this should go. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blatant autobiography, WP:VSCA. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as biography of person of little notability. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:13, 19 November 2008 (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. and merge the other two to List of minor Power Rangers characters Black Kite 01:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of minor Power Rangers characters
- List of minor Power Rangers characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find coverage in reliable sources. The page itself is entirely sourceless. Also nominating related pages:
- Ninjor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alpha 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the list and possibly merge the other two unless it can be argued they're major characters. Plenty of precedent for minor character lists for TV shows, and this is preferable to doing separate articles on each one. This is an example of a topic that faces discrimination by Wikipedia because it's a recent media topic and therefore is unlikely to have much third-party coverage. However the existence of the characters can be verified by checking the shows cited, therefore "verifiability, not truth" is satisfied. Obviously if there happens to be any WP:SYNTH or WP:OR going on then that should be trimmed, but that's a content issue. The Wikiproject under which this article fall should be contacted and encouraged to add sources that might exist. 23skidoo (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the lot. Poor sourcing for subjects that do exist does not mean that these articles should be deleted in any way. Sources might exist for them. And that is what should be looked for before they are AFD'd.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Just the sort of combination articles that ought to be kept The individuals covered in such articles do not have to be independently notable, The necessary sourcing for fictional characters can be dervived from the fiction itself, a suitably RS for the purpose of straightforward non controversial description. DGG (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is no evidence of notability, per nom. Also it is not clear if this list is a synthesis or original research as there are no sources cited to verify its content. There is no encyclopedic content present in this article as it fails WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:NOT#GUIDE. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per general consensus to merge articles up to list articles. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2008 (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, award winning school. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valley View Middle School (Edina, Minnesota)
- Valley View Middle School (Edina, Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable middle school. Tavix (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Normally, I'd say merge to the school district Edina Public School System, which is probably what will happen. Though primary schools are not presumed to be notable, neither can we presume that they are not notable. Unlike most I see, this one might be able to make a case. Since this has a language immersion program, it has some basis for establishing a notability among other Minnesota middle schools. There have been a lot of edits recently, so I'd be interested in seeing if the author(s) can add more. Mandsford (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - In addition to the case made by Mandsford, this is a Blue Ribbon School (1986-87), the highest award a US school can receive. Separately, sufficient sources are available to meet WP:ORG. Note: This was previously called Valley View Junior High School. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep only because of the abundance of reliable sources and awards involved. Otherwise this would be a delete/merge. JBsupreme (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, was thinking we could merge this, but seems like this one is a special case. Closing now. Tavix (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2008 (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.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
InGen
- InGen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional company from the Jurassic Park series. This company does not have any real world notability and has received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The article does nothing but give a short repeat of the plot of the two books, and make a mild attempt at a "Reception" section using sources taken out of context and that would be far better applied to the main article. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Jurrasic Park - At no point does the article assert the notability of this ficticious company outside of the novel. All of the other souces in this article and elsewhere fail to discuss InGen as the subject matter, merely as a villian or plot element in the Jurrasic Park story. We may as well have an article on Initech. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just like last time, the article hangs on the thin thread of the "fictional case studies" source. People found some prospective sources at the end of the last AfD, but those aren't really enough to justify an independent article. I don't have a problem with merging this or redirecting it instead, but that clearly isn't going to happen by itself. In order for us to have an article on this, it should be the subject of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. I don't see that coverage. Protonk (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jurassic Park where this fictional company has its notability. Outside JP there is no notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, Yup, changed my opinion as I have learned that InGen does indeed have some real world notability as a fictional company. It is used in the curriculum of Colorado University[1] and Washington State University[2]. In light of everything else, it meets WP:GNG for me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - To Jurassic Park. — neuro(talk) 06:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
this was kept in april, kept again in May--a third nomination the same year is ridiculous and in my opinion should be considered abusive. (the rule should be 6 months after a first keep, and 2 years after a second).In any case, the machinations of this organization are central to the plot as an example of irresponsibility,and have been discussed in most of the many sources discussing the work--and a large number additional are likely to appear due to the authors recent death. In this particular case, it counts not as background, but as a principal character. Anyway, there is in fact not just a single source; but 4 substantial third party independent sources--I find it frankly hypocritical for people to object to articles sourced only to the primary work as unsourced, and then if they are independently sourced, to object anyway even without having actual objections to the sources--just saying they are not enough. I interpret as the determination to reject articles on characters in fiction regardless of sourcing.--a view which is supported by no wikipedia policy, and amounts to IDONTLIKEIT, and the arguments as mere disguises. DGG (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It was not "kept" in May, it was "no consensus" which opens the door for renomination any time.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the sources that were available online and did not see anything that made them noteworthy. The third reference is about how Spielberg created an allusion to King Kong; that InGen was a part of the scene is unimportant and trivial. The fourth reference is a passing blurb. And the second referenece, you seriously consider that a reliable source? ...describe InGen as comparable to another "sleezy organization". refers to BioSyn, InGen's competitor that offed Dennis Nedry a job making this reference an in-universe reference. --Millbrooky (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not hypocritical. Counting sources without reading them critically lead us here. Had we, at the last AfD, just looked at the available sourcing and said "we can't make an encyclopedia article out of this", we would have closed it as delete. I think you need to walk back your claims about fiction AfD's a few steps. I don't appreciate (and I'm sure I can speak for collectonian) having my statements disregarded as cover for "not liking" fictional material. It is possible that fictional subjects just don't see the same kind of coverage that non-fictional subjects do but have heavy editor attention. In other words, everyone can be an expert on Star Trek (just by turning on the tube) without there needing to be third party work on the subject. It may be possible that editors advocating deletion or merging are just trying to suggest that we should build articles from sources. In this case, we have some slim sourcing--that's why we are on AfD3--but most of it covers the topic only tangentially. More to the point, it doesn't cover it in the sense that our summarizing it would present a remotely complete picture of the subject. In order to do that we need to mine and interpret the fictional work. When that becomes the case, we should look to fold the article in to the parent. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said any one person was -- I was talking about these nomination in general--but I continue to think using "slim" sourcing as a reason disregards basic policy. Similarly does a requirement that articles must be a "complete" picture of the subject" or that we must "mine and interpret" fictional works--I'd say that interpreting fictional works is exactly what we do not do here. That's OR. We describe them. DGG (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we don't "mine and interpret" works by ourselves. We should demand sources that do it. If a fictional element lacks that sourcing then we have three options merge (or delete)/describe (failing WP:PLOT)/interpret (failing WP:OR). When I say "slim sourcing" I mean just what the guideline means: that something should be the subject for non-trivial coverage by multiple sources if we have an article on it. I can't think of an interpretation of WP:N or WP:V that would lead someone to claim such a threshold is a misreading of those policies and guidelines. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said any one person was -- I was talking about these nomination in general--but I continue to think using "slim" sourcing as a reason disregards basic policy. Similarly does a requirement that articles must be a "complete" picture of the subject" or that we must "mine and interpret" fictional works--I'd say that interpreting fictional works is exactly what we do not do here. That's OR. We describe them. DGG (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jurasic Park. I think this page should be merged with the movie's article. I don't think it's notable enough to have it's own. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Central element in two best selling books, three blockbuster movies and I believe has been recreated as a theme park attraction. Clean-up the article per WP:AFD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. Google Books has a few dozen hits; New York Times [3] even discusses the company so I'm seeing this as just a clean-up issue as sources certainly exist. -- Banjeboi 01:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge real-world context to Jurassic Park (franchise). —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as it's an important element in the story and there appears to be sufficient material for a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2008 (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isla Sorna
- Isla Sorna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional location from Jurassic Park; has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and does nothing but repeat the plot of the book/film with some WP:OR added. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Nearly a year has passed, during which nothing has been done to address the total lack of secondary sources (establishing the subject's notability) and near-total lack of primary source citations (establishing accuracy). Time to let it go. WillOakland (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a key location for a major fiction--the role of these islands is discussed extensively in the article. Sourcing for this from the primary work is sufficient, and three nomination in a single year is abusive after the first two have been keeps. Nominate anything enough times, and by chance of who happens to come around it will be deleted. If there's a 80% reliability rate at AfD, then 3 times gives about an even chance of deleting any article. DGG (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop claiming "no consensus" is the same as a true keep. It isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly notable enough but article does need improving to help the rest of us understand and relate to the material. Also comparing the two islands in some ways may make sense. I would have preferred that these AfDs were bundled as well. -- Banjeboi 01:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please establish notability via reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject in some depth (e.g. as much as this article). Don't just blithely assert it. WillOakland (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise). Plot summary, OR, uncited. --EEMIV (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since there is no significant coverage or real-world context that warrants a separate article for this setting in a fictional universe. Any relevant plot detail can be adequately conveyed in the appropriate summaries in the notable JP articles -- books, films, video games. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per DGG. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as there appears to be sufficient material for a separate article. It could possibly be merged into a list of places in the Jurassic Park universe, but it shouldn't be merged into the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – no adequate assertions of notability. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT. No one has addressed this. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy/strong keep due to more than adequate assertions of notability. Passes WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT and no one has addressed any way that this cited unoriginal research does not. This notable location from a franchise that includes films, comics, novels, and video games has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources and goes beyond repetitions of plot by also including out of universe information. Passes WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT with flying colors. Article has in effect been rescued and has improved markedly from the previous two discussions in which it was also kept. --A NobodyMy talk 00:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is to prove why material does meet standards, not that it does not. Although the plot summary of this improved/trimmed article is now cited, there is no assertion that this make-believe island has itself been the subject of significant, third-party coverage; it does not inherit notability from the notable franchise's films, comics, novels, video games, etc. Even the Google Books references you added refer to the island only in passing. The out-of-universe information is marginal/trivial, although perhaps worth copy-and-pasting into the franchise or article article. --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means merging and redirecting, but not deleting. Saying something that appears in one of the most successful movie/novel franchises in history as well as in video games and comics that is familiar to millions of people around the world is somehow not notable is just not valid. There is no reason whatsoever to redlink this article and delete its edit history. The book references are so numerous and are in enough secondary sources that no one can honestly say they are not suitable for a paperless encyclopedia in some capacity. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it means redirecting without a delete, fine -- all I want to see is this article gone. That was my initial !vote, after all, which I dropped in before your work on the article. Despite your flowery prose about the popularity of the franchise, and an incisive claim that my argument simply is "not valid," I still don't see among any of your many citations a third-party assertion that the island itself is notable. So, good luck with that. But it is nice to see you whipping out the "it's a paperless encyclopedia" line. What about those five pillars? --EEMIV (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "all I want to see is this article gone"...What?! Wouldn't you much rather see it improved? We're here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia after all. If all you want is for it to be gone, then what point is there discussing with you? Are you even open to improvements and additional sourcing or is it just about removing the article regardless of what sources turn up or how the article is improved? I ask that seriously, because I am more than happy to engage with people who are objective, but calling this location not notable is downright baffling in the first place and to suggest that all you want to see is the article gone is not an attitude conducive to reaching a consensus. --A NobodyMy talk 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it means redirecting without a delete, fine -- all I want to see is this article gone. That was my initial !vote, after all, which I dropped in before your work on the article. Despite your flowery prose about the popularity of the franchise, and an incisive claim that my argument simply is "not valid," I still don't see among any of your many citations a third-party assertion that the island itself is notable. So, good luck with that. But it is nice to see you whipping out the "it's a paperless encyclopedia" line. What about those five pillars? --EEMIV (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means merging and redirecting, but not deleting. Saying something that appears in one of the most successful movie/novel franchises in history as well as in video games and comics that is familiar to millions of people around the world is somehow not notable is just not valid. There is no reason whatsoever to redlink this article and delete its edit history. The book references are so numerous and are in enough secondary sources that no one can honestly say they are not suitable for a paperless encyclopedia in some capacity. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is to prove why material does meet standards, not that it does not. Although the plot summary of this improved/trimmed article is now cited, there is no assertion that this make-believe island has itself been the subject of significant, third-party coverage; it does not inherit notability from the notable franchise's films, comics, novels, video games, etc. Even the Google Books references you added refer to the island only in passing. The out-of-universe information is marginal/trivial, although perhaps worth copy-and-pasting into the franchise or article article. --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep too notable to be deleted, too big to be merged, and crosses films and books. Could be conceivably merged to a list of JP locations. I can imagine notable magazines such as sight and sound or film comment having some material specific from aroudn the time of production or release. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and, what's more there are now sources. Or does "all I want to see is this article gone" mean a desire to see articles on topics such as this gone without regard to things like that? WP:N does not mean "everything I want to be gone is not notable" DGG (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources that do nothing except substantiate plot summary. I'm still waiting for a claim -- let alone substantiation for -- significant, non-trivial coverage by third-party sources. Everything Nobody has added is just a passing reference to the location. "All I want to see is this article gone" means a desire to see this article gone. It is plot summary and trivia about a non-notable topic. Thank you for the condescending and useless explanation of what notability is(n't); feel free not to whip that out again. --EEMIV (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that no one has presented any actual reason for deletion grounded in logic. Multiple non-trivial references across published books and news sources concerning a location's appearances in major films, novels, comics, and video games is notable by any reasonable standard. The combination of reviews, interviews, etc. that discuss/describe the island include where it was filmed, how the section at the amusement park stands up, etc. all provide sufficient out of universe context to write an article. Because the location has had so many appearances in such a variety of media allows the article to serve as a gateway of sorts to those other articles. As far as notability, not all fictional locations can claim to appear in films that grossed over $100 million each domestically, and that also appear in a variety of other media. Such achievements which again cannot be said for all fictional locations meet the very definitions of notability as does even references in numerous published books and newspapers. It is notable because the overwhelming majority of fictional locations rarely receive ANY references in third party published books like this island does. These facts make this location notable. And the reality is also that more time can be spent verifying content that is added/restored to the article if it is not wasted in THREE AfDs. After the first two, why not instead focus on the efforts to improve the articles as has clearly been shown to be possible? And a handful of deletes here, doesn't change the fact that thousands of others come here for this information. I care far more about helping to improve articles that thousands of our readers, contributors, donors, etc. come to Wikipedia for than a determined minority who simply "want to see is this article gone" apparently regardless of its actual notability and availability of sources. If we keep this article than we can keep adding the many sources and therefore continue to provide thousands of readers with information that while subjectively trivial to you is nevertheless notable to far more people around the world and that is relevant for people interested in how this exceptional fictional location has been presented in a variety of media, which includes those who study aspects of novels, those who study film, etc. I don't see any gain or benefit from halting all work on it and redlinking it. I don't see some problem in the edit history of libel or what have you that necessitates some kind of urgent deletion of that either. I see many benefits to keeping this article and continuing to improve it. I see nothing in deletion that helps us catalog human knowledge as encyclopedias do. --A NobodyMy talk 05:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and, what's more there are now sources. Or does "all I want to see is this article gone" mean a desire to see articles on topics such as this gone without regard to things like that? WP:N does not mean "everything I want to be gone is not notable" DGG (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2008 (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isla Nublar
- Isla Nublar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable fictional location from Jurassic Park; has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources and does nothing but repeat the plot of the book/film with some WP:OR added. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Nearly a year has passed, during which nothing has been done to address the total lack of secondary sources (establishing the subject's notability) or even primary source citations (establishing accuracy). Time to let it go. WillOakland (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the fictional universe article Jurassic Park (franchise) 76.66.193.170 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the key location for a major fiction--that it is on the island is essential to the very nature of the fiction. Sourcing for this from the primary work is sufficient, and three nomination in a single year is abusive after the first two have been keeps. Nominate anything enough times, and by chance of who happens to come around it will be deleted. If there's a 80% reliability rate at AfD, then 3 times gives about an even chance of deleting any article. DGG (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop claiming "no consensus" is the same as a true keep. It isn't. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly notable enough but article does need improving to help the rest of us understand and relate to the material. Also comparing the two islands in some ways may make sense. I would have preferred that these AfDs were bundled as well. -- Banjeboi 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep topic is certainly notable and crosses all of the films in the franchise. Given the availability of sources, there's no reason that they cannot and should not be added to improve this article. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Availability of secondary sources is widely assumed, but nobody seems in a hurry to prove it or to limit the scope of the article accordingly. WillOakland (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Jurassic Park (franchise) - Non-notable topic; article is a regurgitation of plot and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since there is no significant coverage or real-world context that warrants a separate article for this setting in a fictional universe. Any relevant plot detail can be adequately conveyed in the appropriate summaries in the notable JP articles -- books, films, video games. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per DGG Ecoleetage (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is useful, as I just went to go find information about this very specific topic. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 06:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as there appears to be sufficient material for a separate article. It could possibly be merged into a list of places in the Jurassic Park universe, but it shouldn't be merged into the main article. Everyking (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – no notability asserted whatsoever. All the additions aren't adequate examples of real world context. Fails WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy/strong keep as notable fictional location with appearances in novels, video games, comic books, and films with significant coverage in reliable third party sources that goes beyond just repeating plot details by also presenting out of universe information covered in secondary sources which means unoriginal research. Passes WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT with flying colors. No assertion as to how it fails any thing whatsoever. Articles has in effect been rescued as it has improved markedly since it was kept in previous two discussions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is to prove why material does meet standards, not that it does not. Although the plot summary of this improved/trimmed article is now cited, there is no assertion that this make-believe island has itself been the subject of significant, third-party coverage; it does not inherit notability from the notable franchise's films, comics, novels, video games, etc. Even the Google Books references you added refer to the island only in passing. The out-of-universe information is marginal/trivial, although perhaps worth copy-and-pasting into the franchise or article article. --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means merging and redirecting, but not deleting. Saying something that appears in one of the most successful movie/novel franchises in history as well as in video games and comics that is familiar to millions of people around the world and that has even been made into a real life replica park at Universal Studios is just not valid. There is no reason whatsoever to redlink this article and delete its edit history. The book references are so numerous and are in enough secondary sources that no one can honestly say they are not suitable for a paperless encyclopedia in some capacity. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it means redirecting without a delete, fine -- all I want to see is this article gone. That was my initial !vote, after all, which I dropped in before your work on the article. Despite your flowery prose about the popularity of the franchise, and an incisive claim that my argument simply is "not valid," I still don't see among any of your many citations a third-party assertion that the island itself is notable. So, good luck with that. But it is nice to see you whipping out the "it's a paperless encyclopedia" line. What about those five pillars? --EEMIV (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "all I want to see is this article gone"...What?! Wouldn't you much rather see it improved? We're here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia after all. If all you want is for it to be gone, then what point is there discussing with you? Are you even open to improvements and additional sourcing or is it just about removing the article regardless of what sources turn up or how the article is improved? I ask that seriously, because I am more than happy to engage with people who are objective, but calling this location not notable is downright baffling in the first place and to suggest that all you want to see is the article gone is not an attitude conducive to reaching a consensus. --A NobodyMy talk 05:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it means redirecting without a delete, fine -- all I want to see is this article gone. That was my initial !vote, after all, which I dropped in before your work on the article. Despite your flowery prose about the popularity of the franchise, and an incisive claim that my argument simply is "not valid," I still don't see among any of your many citations a third-party assertion that the island itself is notable. So, good luck with that. But it is nice to see you whipping out the "it's a paperless encyclopedia" line. What about those five pillars? --EEMIV (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which means merging and redirecting, but not deleting. Saying something that appears in one of the most successful movie/novel franchises in history as well as in video games and comics that is familiar to millions of people around the world and that has even been made into a real life replica park at Universal Studios is just not valid. There is no reason whatsoever to redlink this article and delete its edit history. The book references are so numerous and are in enough secondary sources that no one can honestly say they are not suitable for a paperless encyclopedia in some capacity. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is to prove why material does meet standards, not that it does not. Although the plot summary of this improved/trimmed article is now cited, there is no assertion that this make-believe island has itself been the subject of significant, third-party coverage; it does not inherit notability from the notable franchise's films, comics, novels, video games, etc. Even the Google Books references you added refer to the island only in passing. The out-of-universe information is marginal/trivial, although perhaps worth copy-and-pasting into the franchise or article article. --EEMIV (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see potential for expansion of island/location info etc, sourced from books about film etc. Subject covers more than one book and one film so crosses genres. Too substansive to merge. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the burden of proof is on whoever wants to delete. And when sources are offered, as here, if someone objects to them, they have the burden of showing they're irrelevant or whatever. Is it really suggested that we have to somehow prove each source is significant, and eliminate from WP ever article where that cannot immediately be done? How would one do such proof, anyway? DGG (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you just have it backwards. WP:V is pretty clear that the burden of proof is on those adding/restoring content -- and with that comes establish notability and whatnot. No one has yet established that for this content. As for Nobody's sources: none of the books or even chapters of these books focus on this setting; they mention the island merely to provide context for talking about other topics. These are fleeting, passing, minor, trivial, insignificant references; it is not the multiple, significant third-party coverage called for in establishing notability. As for vetting every article and source: yeah, hey, good idea. --EEMIV (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that no one has presented any actual reason for deletion grounded in logic. Multiple non-trivial references across published books and news sources concerning a location's appearances in major films, novels, comics, video games, and even a section at a real world amusement park in Florida is notable by any reasonable standard. The combination of reviews, interviews, etc. that discuss/describe the island include where it was filmed, how the section at the amusement park stands up, etc. all provide sufficient out of universe context to write an article. Because the location has had so many appearances in such a variety of media allows the article to serve as a gateway of sorts to those other articles. As far as notability, not all fictional locations can claim to appear in films that grossed over $100 million each domestically, and that also appear in a variety of other media and even as a section of an amusement park. Such achievements which again cannot be said for all fictional locations meet the very definitions of notability as does even references in numerous published books and newspapers. It is notable because the overwhelming majority of fictional locations do not become places where people can actually ride rides and see animatronic dinosaurs. Nor do the overwhelming majority of fictional locations received ANY references in published books like this island does. These facts make this location notable. And the reality is also that more time can be spent verifying content that is added/restored to the article if it is not wasted in THREE AfDs. After the first two, why not instead focus on the efforts to improve the articles as has clearly been shown to be possible? And a handful of deletes here, doesn't change the fact that thousands of others come here for this information. I care far more about helping to improve articles that thousands of our readers, contributors, donors, etc. come to Wikipedia for than a determined minority who simply "want to see is this article gone" apparently regardless of its actual notability and availability of sources. --A NobodyMy talk 05:51, 24 November 2008 (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. Ѕandahl ♥ 01:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technological Supremacy
- Technological Supremacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Unreliable sources, an essay, "Goals for this page", P.S. HI, non-notable... DavidWS (contribs) 23:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-proclaimed soapboxing. Blogs and web hosts are that-a-way. WillOakland (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is amusing that the author apparently did not notice that technology tree refers to a feature of kingdom-simulation style computer games. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of the sources mentioned this sense of supremacy. I added a hoax tag. This might constitute a speedy. DavidWS (contribs) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a personal essay. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2008 (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 Speedily deleted CSD G4, how I didn't see the earlier AfD I do not know. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imperanon
- Imperanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy (G4 and A7 declined). Claims to be notable by association with the "Big 5" but no sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2008 (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. wikiHow, from which this was copy/pasted, is cc-by-nc-sa and so not compatible with Wikipedia CIreland (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to play the guitar
- How to play the guitar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a guide or how-to. Survival seems to fall in WP:SNOW territory, in my opinion. Vianello (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete of this copy and paste from wikihow [4] that falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. FlyingToaster 22:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - IMO, this kind of appears to be an IAR speedy delete case, as the article is clearly what Wikipedia is not (specifically, an unencyclopedic how-to guide). Jamie☆S93 23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest delete - (Yeah I like competing) - Okay, copy and paste from wikihow. wikipedia is not a howto guide. I see inclement weather on the horizon. DavidWS (contribs) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only is the first part a copy of the Wikihow article, the "How to strum the guitar" section is a copyvio of this page (so I'm off now to remove it). Deor (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it's a first contribution, copy and paste from other sources isn't really the writing of an article. I clicked on the "move" button to change "pla" to "play", but I'm afraid that this article cannot sta or stay. Mandsford (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2008 (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 as an attack page disguised as a dictionary definition. BencherliteTalk 21:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Loathe
- Loathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Requires deletion - does not fall under CSD but is a dictionary definition. No transwiki to Wiktionary needed as Loathe already exists there. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2008 (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 A7 by Gwen Gale , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Larkosis
- Larkosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like an essay. No CSD Criteria to fit this article, not vandalism, falls as OR. Needs deletion Thor Malmjursson (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as it appears to be a manifesto for a non-notable group. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per AlexTiefling, db-band. JNW (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - as non-notable band, so tagged. The article is written in first-person narrative, creating a conflict-of-interest. The text is an essay of personal reflections upon musical composition, and not suitable for an encyclopedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Don't see why this was brought to AFD. Tavix (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2008 (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. Black Kite 01:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malice in Wonderland (Snoop Dogg album)
- Malice in Wonderland (Snoop Dogg album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable unreleased album with little or no substantial media coverage. Article is mostly speculation, and the album title is temporary, according the the most reliable source I could dig up. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No release date, no name, no information. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Lambiam 21:49, 22 November 2008 (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. The nomination was withdrawn by the nominator. Non-admin closure. Reyk YO! 23:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Grehan
- Martin Grehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable footballer, fails WP:ATHLETE - never played in a which is not fully professional league contested prod Oo7565 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind i withdrew this afd i see the source that he did play ina fully pro league sorry
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - he played for Motherwell in the Scottish Premier League and therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2008 (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
United Nations Exploratory Force
- United Nations Exploratory Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Only in-universe citations, can find nothing relating to a worldwide view on subject. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 20:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <s? Merge to The Forever War, Joe Haldeman's classic . This is primarily a detailed plot summary, since Pvt. Mandella's unending indenture to this military unit is the basis for the novel. Given the nature of edit wars, I think that a merger signals a consensus that something should be mentioned within an existing article. If the article is kept, then the title needs to be moved to minimize confusion with the peacekeeping forces of the real United Nations. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the United Nations Exploratory Force, not the United Nations Emergency Force. I've added this article to the UNEF disambig page to avoid confusion, so why should it be moved? --UNSC Trooper (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, this imaginary organization doesn't belong on a disambiguation page in the first place. Disambiguation pages are to help navigate between likely search terms, such as Haldeman to distinguish Joe Haldeman from H.R. Haldeman. I cannot imagine that anyone has heard of this particular UNEF except in the context of the book, and that one would search under The Forever War or Joe Haldeman or even William Mandella before searching under UNEF. A merge !vote is a way of saying that we should give people time to move the information before the article is erased. In that this is well-covered in the article about The Forever War, a delete with no redirect would probably be better than a merge and redirect. Mandsford (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real-world applicability, not third party sources, no reason to have such detail in the parent article. gnfnrf (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As noted above there is no real-world applicability, no third party sources, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a fanzine. Justin talk 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, since the subject can be addressed as part of the synopsis of the plot. As with trivia sections in articles, any new or interesting information can be woven into the article, without ordering a merge. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2008 (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 - copyrighted material included on page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MedCorp
- MedCorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to read like an advertisement for the MedCorp service. Only sources refer directly to MedCorp's Website. In present condition does not warrant an article - would need a very significant rewrite to clean up. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Non admin closure. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 06:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John Edwards extramarital affair
- John Edwards extramarital affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an affair between two indviduals, one of whom is a public figure. The affair certainly belongs in the article of the public figure. Unlike Bill Clinton's affair, or Elliott Spitzer's affair, there was no political consequence to this affair, and hence, I do not think the affair itself is encyclopedic to warrent its own article Dems on the move (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. You're looking for Wikipedia:Requested mergers. If it belongs in the article on the public figure, a merge should be discussed. I think that the affair had a significant impact on his chances of becoming Obama's running mate, hence it having political consequence. Either way, there's no case for deletion to consider. - Mgm|(talk) 20:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is already a good section on the affair in the John Edwards article. Dems on the move (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whether or not the affair had any impact on Barack Obama's choice for runningmate is pure speculation. Dems on the move (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant event documented by multiple news sources that describes the reason for a major political figures disappearance from public view. Prior to the affair being revealed, Edwards was being talked about as a potential Vice President or Attorney General.[5] Since then he has effectively vanished.[6] Wikipedia:Summary style properly used by having a short summary in the Edwards biography with most details in this subarticle. A merge does not appear practical without removing a large amount of valuable content. --Allen3 talk 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- this guy almost became Vice-President, and his extramarital affair has had a profound impact upon his political ambitions. The subject is notable, sourcable, relevant... - Richard Cavell (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a matter of opinion about whether there was no political consequence from the affair. Sometimes, as with the Chappaquiddick incident, it isn't a career ender, but becomes a permanent part of one's record. Generally speaking, one's career is not advanced by a showing of having lied about fathering a child out of wedlock in the course of adultery. True, there is a section about the affair in the article about Edwards himself, but is it "too long", overshadowing the rest of Senator Edwards's biography? Or is it "too short" to the point of glossing over the whole affair? Depending on how much people want to know about the dalliances of the Senator, one can read either article. Mandsford (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Probably a Speed Keep actually, but I'll just go with keep. No political significance? There are many more offices in American than that of President. Edwards political career is dead now. In any event, that is open to opinion and certainly not the criteria. The criteria is notability and sourcability, of which this article has in spades. Dman727 (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep much as I hate the inclusion of tabloid material in Wikipedia, this one received highly extensive coverage over a long period of time, beyond the scope of a traditional newspaper or magazine thus WP:NOTNEWS would not apply and the threshold for verifiability through reliable publications is more than met. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As noted above, it's plainly notable, so any removal of the article should be done by merging. As a significant incident in his history and a plainly notable topic, we need to devote plenty of coverage to it, and as it's too large to merge adequately and yet stay in summary style, it needs to remain an article. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this is a viable article, and in fact it has drawn attention to the fact that the Gary Hart/Donna Rice affair actually does not have an article of its own ... and it certainly warrants one. 23skidoo (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Great Floridians
- List of Great Floridians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Huge list. None of these people have anything in common besides that they all received what appears to be a fairly common title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This appears to be a valid spin-off from Great_Floridians(which gives the context, part of which should be copied over, and also explains the rules have become stricter. In addition, it adds additional information over the category (years).- Mgm|(talk) 20:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - useful, verifiable information that an inclusive encyclopedia ought to have. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. I agree with Mgm that this definitely needs some context, since "Great Floridians" is an honor from the Florida Secretary of State's office. It still doesn't make up for the other thing that the Florida Secretary of State did in the year 2000. Mandsford (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, the article is lacking in context, but the list appears to be valid and satisfying of inclusion criteria. — neuro(talk) 06:17, 20 November 2008 (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 G3 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Special ed sitcom
- Special ed sitcom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, so potentially original research, does not even mention the channel it is being broadcast on, so it could be a hoax, nothing on Google, and potentially unfounded speculative statements like: "These are sure to gain a cult if not mainstream following". WP:CRYSTAL all over the place. — neuro(talk) 19:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Seems to be nonsense/vandalism, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3. Most likely a hoax. Poorly edited, the tables and sections were probably copy-pasted from another article (they read "[edit] references" instead of being a section break). Also the idea is partially stolen from the American television show Crank Yankers, which also dominates the search results for "special ed sitcom" found by the nom. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:56, 19 November 2008 (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 sadly, delete. This band could likely meet WP:MUSIC if the coverage and radio play were reliably and thoroughly cited. However, with no charting and no notable distribution, the bare assertions of coverage were not enough to sway editors into keeping this article. This article's re-creation will be welcome if and when verifiable sources are given. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greymatter
- Greymatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find multiple mentions in reliable sources, they have 2 self-released albums and have a "dedicated following of enthusiastic fans, including 1400 MySpace", which just about says it all. The previous AfD was for an entirely different topic that existed at this location (some software application it seems). Nouse4aname (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, does have some sources though. — neuro(talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being on MySpace doesn't cut it, fails WP:MUSIC. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. 1400 fans on MySpace doesn't mean anything. DavidWS (contribs) 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete! -I'm afraid I'm not too up on how to post on this discussion (pointers welcome!), but I don't feel that they fail WP:MUSIC, though maybe are a bit close to the line. I think that Greymatter are notable in their genre, i.e UK lesbian music. They have received airplay across America (I'll try my best to get the reference up and a link to the media stream in the near future). They have been independently reviewed and interviewed by the leading UK press in the lesbian market, and in europe while on their european tour they have been covered on Greek TV and in the Italian press. They've also played 2 International Music events relevant to their genre and style, and a significant UK lesbian arts event, as well as some of the main (highest attendance) UK Prides, e.g. Brighton. I understand this doesn't compare with the mainstream music scene, but are we saying that a band who operates in a minority genre can't be counted as notable? As an aside, regarding CD production and sales, going it alone is becoming more widespread; the industry is changing. There are bands who have sold less CDs via a record label than indie bands have sold off their own backs. If the job of a record label is to make revenue from a band's music, then maybe the notability criteria should be measured on revenue and not who a band is signed to? (I'm not saying this helps Greymatter's case - should I maybe take this discussion over to the WP:MUSIC page?) kiden (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to provide reliable sources to prove that the band is notable. Take a look at the reliable sources link to see what this means. Also take a look at WP:MUSICBIO. There are twelve criteria listed there, Greymatter need to satisfy at least one of these to warrant an article, if you can provide verifiable evidence that one or more of these requirements is met, then the article will not be deleted. Simply stating that they are notable without evidence fails our WP:V guideline that all statements must be referenced to a reliable source. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, I was counting Diva, Sapphic Central, G3, Gaydarnation, Velvet, crAve, L Mag, eurOut, and Gingerbeer as multiple non-trivial published works in lesbian culture; all have published articles, features, reviews, and interviews of Greymatter (i.e. not just release info, performance dates, or contact listings). Five of these are available to read online, 4 are subscription based. Will links to the articles count as verifiable evidence, and would these sources be considered reliable (edit: I've just asked this over on the relevant page)? The BBC also confirm the fact that the band became a five-pieve in 2004 in a report on the Abbey Festival at which they performed; should I cite this? They were interviewed for a Greek TV channel on their Caterpillar Tree tour, but being from the UK, I can't say whether this was notable or national - without understanding Greek I don't know how to check this..? I'd also say that Greymatter might be considered to be a prominent representative of lesbian music in Reading, but I don't know if lesbian music is considered a notable style (and is there a list of notable styles)? kiden (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted per G7 Skier Dude (talk) 09:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed header. DARTH PANDAduel 04:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stevanna Jackson
- Stevanna Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While there are enough claims of importance to avoid an A7 speedy deletion, and it's not quite close enough (in my mind) to the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevanna Jackson to qualify for a G4 speedy deletion, none of the issues brought up at the previous AfD have been addressed in this version. Prod contested without reason in edit summary. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems non-notable, also, the only 'reference' is not actually a link at all. — neuro(talk) 19:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briana Winter
- Briana Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Artist that fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Only claim is that one song was featured in a TV show, however this remains unverified, and as per Wikipedia:MUSICBIO#C10 is insufficient to support a separate article. I can't find any decent reliable sources that say anything about her. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with nom. I did my own Google searching, and I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources and external information/coverage about her – a song appearance on a TV show doesn't intrinsically offer notability to meet WP:MUSIC standards, either. Jamie☆S93 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even the person's own website fails to give anyone any reason to think she deserves an encyclopedia entry. Review page doesn't seem to show any reviews of note. Maybe someday she'll get there, I don't know, but clearly not notable enough for listing here yet. DreamGuy (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2008 (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 procedural close - page speedy deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightweight Communications and Marshalling
- Lightweight Communications and Marshalling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Based on the following web search:
the article subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources, and so doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. RayAYang (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While Google is not always the best measure of notability, it is a good yardstick for IT and tech items. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN open source project that AFAICT has only ever been used by its original authors. 'Users' mailing list only shows up posts by the three people listed as project admins. JulesH (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy, I created the page. I believe that LCM's notability in the robotics community is above threshold [1], and I believe the page serves a useful disambiguation purpose. However, I agree that, by the metrics mentioned above, it seems relatively unnotable. I am open to deleting the page for now and revisiting the issue sometime in the future. EdwinOlson (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] http://duerer.usc.edu/pipermail/robotics-worldwide/2008-October/001470.html)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
European Jews for a Just Peace
- European Jews for a Just Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The organization this article is about lacks notability, and the article does not establish notability.
NB: The subject that is the focus of the supposed group, European Jews for a Just Peace, is a notable subject, but the organization is not notable. I would appreciate it if those who comment on this AfD focus on the organization, not the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group has lots of independent coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I have no vote either way, but I just wanted to point out, looks like this AFD got posted twice on the AFD page. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- A Google news search for European Jews for a Just Peace does not get a single hit [7]. A search in Ha'aretz, a fairly left leaning Israeli newspaper, that would likely cover any news about such a group if any such news existed, also showed no hits [8]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually a Google News search gets 37 hits if it's not restricted to the last month.[9] Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the group has to say has considerable notability. Reference to EJJP first appeared in anti-Zionism Feb.22, 2007 [10], about 9 months before it had its own article, now facing deletion. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The original description ’18 European Jewish groups’ was changed to ‘18 European Jewish pro-Palestinian peace groups’ on 27 Feb 2007[11], and it had been sitting quietly in that article since. Yesterday, it was edited to describe it with its own words [and give a basis for their stated beliefs][12], it became the object of several fast-paced reverts, with indications that talk would be required. The talk provided is this notification of AfD. It seems that ‘notability’ may not be the real or only reason for the AfD. Regards,CasualObserver'48 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CasualObserver, the article about European Jews for a Just Peace had not come to my intention before this morning, so I could not have nominated it before deletion before then. You seem to be insinuating bad faith on my part, which I do not much appreciate. You might want to reconsider what you have written about me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malcolm, I didn't mention your name, why did you mention mine? As you are a heavy editor on the other page, I assumed that you had previously checked the noted links and refs, since that is considered good editorial practice; sorry for that. I believe that I have stated relevant facts for consideration in this AfD. If you understand something from these facts then that must be your faith. I will admit that the initiation of an AfD on a ‘mother article,’ rather than the stated desire for discussion indicated in edit summaries on another page, has stretched my AGF. Therefore, I have reconsidered and changed my previous post. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CasualObserver, the article about European Jews for a Just Peace had not come to my intention before this morning, so I could not have nominated it before deletion before then. You seem to be insinuating bad faith on my part, which I do not much appreciate. You might want to reconsider what you have written about me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CasualObserver, sorry about not replying earlier.
- I consider referring to people by name good manners, and intend to continue that practice.
- I do things my life in addition to edit Wikipedia, and do not necessarily bother to check all sources in an article for quality unless something draws my intention to them, as in this case.
- To the best of my knowledge, any editor can initiate an AfD on a problematic article, if they have your permission, or not.
- I am not particularly interested to know if you trust my good faith, and do not know why you are telling me about your WP:AGF problems here.
- This AfD is the wrong place to discuss what you consider my deficiencies as an editor. If you think I have done something wrong, you have a right to take that to the appropriate Administrators Noticeboard. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malcolm, I am similarly sorry for the tardy reply, just saw this.
- 1. I agree in the outside world, but at wiki one is supposed to discuss the topics, not the editors.
- 2. We all operate under similar constraints.
- 3. It is absolutely your right, as is mine to comment.
- 4. No comment.
- 5. I’m not doing that. You did what you thought was right; that is not wrong. Why would I even bother to do what you suggest?
- CasualObserver, sorry about not replying earlier.
- Look, I took my best ‘keep’ shots early in the page and since, have been awaiting consensus to develop. As I note your continuing posts below, maybe that in-action is policy-appropriate for you also, but you started the page, I dunno. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable organization. I also believe the circumstances of this nomination are a bit unusual. CJCurrie (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC) [modified 04:31, 20 November 2008][reply]
- comment The article only seems to reference the organisation's website. Could those asserting its notability please add some references to WP:Reliable sources, so we can see that it is notable.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As requested, located here, however. A lexisnexis search of Major U.S. and World Publications for European Jews for a Just Peace (Search Details: You searched for: ("European Jews for a Just Peace") and DATE(>2000-01-01)), reveals these five RSs.
- The Independent (London), November 27, 2002, Wednesday. LETTER: PROMISE OF A FUN-FILLED DAY' BELIES A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS
- The New York Times, February 9, 2006 Thursday, Anglicans Vote to Divest From Concerns in Israel-Occupied Areas
…Some Jewish groups in the United States and Europe welcomed the church's decision. I think it is a powerful message, said Dan Judelson, secretary of European Jews for a Just Peace, which has called for Israel's immediate withdrawal from the occupied territories. It shows that people are not prepared to lie down and let the issue rest.…
- The Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2006, Friday, Divestment campaign seen losing steam
…Among the 19 groups signing the letter were Action Around Bethlehem Children with Disability the Amos Trust Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine Campaign Against the Arms Trade the Council for Arab-British Understanding European Jews for a Just Peace Friends of Sabeel UK International Committee Against House Demolitions Interpal Jewish Socialists' Group Jews for Justice for Palestinians Just Peace UK Labor Middle East Council Medical Aid for Palestinians Pax Christi and War on Want. ...
- BBC Monitoring Europe – Political, Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, November 14, 2006 Tuesday
European Jewish organization urges EU pressure on Israel Text of unattributed report, entitled "Jewish protest against Israel", report by Austrian newspaper Wiener Zeitung on 14 November Brussels/Vienna: The European Jews for a Just Peace (EJJP) association has appealed to the EU to take effective measures in order to make Israel respect international law. The military operations in Gaza have led to the oppression and persecution of the Palestinian population, the extent of which is intolerable, a press release of the executive committee of the association of 18 Jewish organizations in 10 European countries, including Austria, says. "As European citizens, we are not willing to keep silent about the crimes that are being committed against an imprisoned, besieged people, who have become the victim of Europe's history. As Jews we will not commit the same mistake that we have often accused those of who kept silent in view of crimes against humanity," the EJJP statement says. Source: Wiener Zeitung, Vienna, in German 14 Nov 06
- The Irish Times, July 5, 2008 Saturday, EU policy on Israel and the Palestinians SECTION: LETTERS; Pg. 15
I believe these qualify. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, these are all reliable sources for this topic and there are many more. The topic (this organization) has more than enough coverage to meet WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure of the status of letters, but the other material looks fine.
I now vote keep--Peter cohen (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seeing some of the discussion below, I'm withdrawing my voe. I've put a comment on the article talk page suggesting people add references to reliable sources. If they can base the article on them, then I'll be convinced. otherwise...--Peter cohen (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure of the status of letters, but the other material looks fine.
Keep As noted above, the group is certainly notable. I am concerned that the AfD was initiated after a number of editors started an edit-war in an apparent attempt to remove this group's statement from the article on Anti-Zionism. As others have commented, there is something odd about this sudden proposal. RolandR (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP: Notability: Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail... All I see in these newspaper mentions (above) is the name of the group, without any discussion of the group at all, much less a detailed discussion. A few mentions of the name in newspapers does not constitute (in my understanding of WP guidelines) notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gwen Gale, I note that you have not contradicted my observation that the news coverage, slight as it is, only mentions the name of the group, without any significant discussion of the group in detail. If that constitutes notability, I very much misunderstand WP:notability. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just raised the question on the Village Pump [13], since I could be wrong about notability guidelines. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's plenty of independent coverage to establish notability. Celarnor Talk to me 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As well as the sources quoted above there's this extensive coverage in Deutsche Welle [14][15] and the formation of the group is covered in the American Jewish Year Book 2004 [16]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Deutsche Welle article seems nothing more than a mention of the name of the group, and does not address the subject directly in detail, as per WP: notability guidelines. American Jewish Year Book 2004 seems to have published the groups press release, without committing on it. That makes the group notable? It is puzzling to see so many editors find that so little is necessary to establish notability. No wonder that academics are so dismissive of Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The two Deutsche Welle articles are wholly about this group's activities, and do you really think that the American Jewish Committee, the publisher of the American Jewish Year Book, is in the business of spouting propaganda on behalf of a pro-Palestinian organisation? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Deutsche Welle article seems nothing more than a mention of the name of the group, and does not address the subject directly in detail, as per WP: notability guidelines. American Jewish Year Book 2004 seems to have published the groups press release, without committing on it. That makes the group notable? It is puzzling to see so many editors find that so little is necessary to establish notability. No wonder that academics are so dismissive of Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger, saying the Deutsche Welle article is about European Jews for a Just Peace is pretty imaginative, and factually incorrect. The name of the group is mentioned, without addressing the subject directly in detail, as per WP: Notability. As for the American Jewish Year Book 2004, that year it contained 704 pages, and apparently they include the press release of many new organizations every year. I do not see anything to indicate there was more than a press release. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. There is very little evidence that this group is at all notable except. A few drive-by media references being passed off by other editors using adjectives (extensive??) that are at best misguided and at worst simply disingenuous - are you kidding me? Wikipedia deserves a better standard than that. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Delete. I have no idea why there's such an uproar! I don't think that an article about this fascinating organization can currently be written based solely on reliable secondary sources, "mentions" notwithstanding. If and when it can be done, pretty please re-create, citing those sources. As soon as DW or whoever else does up a profile of the org., we can have an article about them. Full disclosure: I am a European Jew for a Just Peace. -- Y not? 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for clarification I'm sorry, but I can't make sense out of your recommendation. Does D mean Delete? Do you actually mean to say that articles cannot be based on reliable secondary sources? Please explain. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Thanks for having another look at your recommendation and clarifying your prose, I appreciate it. Darkspots (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough independent mentions. I agree these need to be added to the article. No reflection on the AFD nomination, which I believe was done in good faith. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the 37 g-news hits, few, if any, are coverage of the organization. They therefore don't not meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:ORG. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The AfD is not concerned with the issues behind European Jews for a Just Peace, and the issue is not the value that some WP users may see in that group. The issue is the article. The article does nothing to establish the notability of its subject. Nor is there anything that has entered in the discussion to show that a level of notability can be established to justify the WP article. The article clearly does not meet WP:notability standards outlined in its guidelines: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2008 (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. Black Kite 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of states with language politics
- List of states with language politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's no way this list can be sourced, as "a state where language is a politic issue" is undefinable. There are discussions about language policies in every country in the world, but how should we determine when this is a politic issue? must there be a heavy debate? terrorist attacks, maybe? seriously, this is unsourceable. a list of minority languages by country, or a list of banned/suppressed languages, could be made, but not this one Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article has been tagged for WP:OR and WP:V violations since August 2006. One shouldn't first turn to AfD to solve verifiabiliy and original research problems, but deletion is an appropriate measure when the nature and history of an article show that it is unlikely to ever comply with WP:V and WP:OR. It is an WP:OR list that practically invites WP:NPOV problems. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list has a snowball's chance in hell of being encyclopedic. Virtually every state has a political issue, or has the potential for political issues, over the language used in that state. Specific issues of specific states may deserve their own articles, and then this can be made into a category, but as a list it is impossible to maintain as accurate, verifiable and encyclopedic. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V/WP:OR. For example the Norwegian section do not mention Riksmål (and it's a problematic area). Nsaa (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Would this have a chance of surviving if we changed this to a List of countries with multiple official languages and totally remove the politics/conflict part of the article. Such a list would be verifiable and useful and we could draw sources from country articles. - Mgm|(talk) 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the article wouldn't really be surviving. The apparent intent of the list, created nearly five years ago when the bar was not raised as high, was to have a table to keep track of political controversies involving language use; something that I think would be difficult to maintain. There are other tables that describe the official languages in the world's nations, although I'd have to do some looking to show a good example. Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's at List of official languages by state. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the article wouldn't really be surviving. The apparent intent of the list, created nearly five years ago when the bar was not raised as high, was to have a table to keep track of political controversies involving language use; something that I think would be difficult to maintain. There are other tables that describe the official languages in the world's nations, although I'd have to do some looking to show a good example. Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks-- I knew it was there somewhere. Mandsford (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete oh good lord. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for irremediable WP:V problems. -- Biruitorul Talk 19:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apart from anything else, the name is highly misleading. You might as well have a page called "List of states with politics". Junglehungry (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - those who are curious about the first AfD discussion can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of states where language is a political issue. I offer no recommendation at this time. B.Wind (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2008 (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. John254 04:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proprietary protocol
- Proprietary protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Combination of two words hardly constitutes a unique dictionary definition. The idea of incorrect use of the word proprietary is already well established on more than enough articles, and combining the word with every topic it can possibly applied to does not make for a valid article. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the phrase "proprietary protocol" is a commonly used on the Web and in news sources searched by Google News. The fact you misuse "is", when I use my definition of "a small North African bird", does not negate the fact that this is the real-life meaning of the word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Dispute of the meaning has nothing todo with my nomination. The term "proprietary sandwich" is perfectly valid, could even become used to describe something, however, it doesn't represent any new meaning worthy of an article. As I said, proprietary and protocol are both covered in detail already, unless we are also going to have articles for "Red Bus", "Green Mobile Phone" and "Smelly Cheese", then i don't see how a combination of words, however often used becomes a topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the meaning of the word has nothing to do with your nomination, then don't bring it up in your nomination. Colors are usually worthless for descriptors, and smelly is in the mind of the beholder. None of those have the type of quality hits "proprietary protocol" does. And the issues surrounding "proprietary protocols" are different then "proprietary software", etc., and worthy of their own article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Dispute of the meaning has nothing todo with my nomination. The term "proprietary sandwich" is perfectly valid, could even become used to describe something, however, it doesn't represent any new meaning worthy of an article. As I said, proprietary and protocol are both covered in detail already, unless we are also going to have articles for "Red Bus", "Green Mobile Phone" and "Smelly Cheese", then i don't see how a combination of words, however often used becomes a topic. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This article needs some expansion, but this is an important subject for many software developers. The fact that the vast majority of "proprietary FOO" articles would be pointless does not mean that this particular one is. Speaking as a programmer of open-source network applications, the issue of proprietary vs. non-proprietary protocols in particular has significance to my (and many other individuals') professional work. Networking protocols are a topic area where the issue of proprietary vs. open is particularly crucial, and thus the general (and correct) objection to the proliferation of "proprietary X, Y, and Z" articles should not be applied.Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Douglass
- Dan Douglass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite citations, no evidence of meeting WP:BIO, and appears to be an WP:Autobiography of a blogger with a political slant and some minor community activism experience. Closeapple (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Hawaii-related deletions and Politicians-related deletions. —Closeapple (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:Conflict of interest article creation. Carefully worded to appear like this person is more notable, and it's still not notable enough:
- "Editor of Hawaii Liberty Chronicles" means "Guy with his own blog."
- "Published most extensively on the Hawaii Reporter" seems to mean "some other website let me write pages there too" — though that website at least has a paragraph in a Wall Street Journal article for a (weak) chance at meeting notability.
- "Campaign manager for Stop Rail Now" from the article becomes "deputy campaign manager" in one source and just "among activists" in another.
- It appears that, at most, he's a commentator who headed a local community activist campaign in Hawaii, which still does not seem notable in the context of a general encyclopedia. (More realistically, it seems he's a blogger with his own domain name, whose stuff was occasionally repeated on another alternative-journalism website, and who was involved in a community group because someone wants to run a commuter train through his neighborhood. Possibly civic-minded in some fashion, but definitely not encyclopedia material.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability claimed in the article that passes WP:N or WP:BIO. No notability found that could be used to justify saving this article. However, conflict of interest is NOT a reason to delete an article. The lack of notability is, but if I was famous, and I created an article about myself, the fact that I am notable is reason enough to keep the article, the COI is only justification to edit the article, never to delete it. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops-- I didn't mean to imply that COI/autobiography was a reason for deletion in itself; only that editors might need to take a deeper look at the sources, instead of accepting the article's words at face value with their normal meaning, since the author seems to have a specific agenda of maximizing the subject's reputation. --Closeapple (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (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. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Inman
- Nicholas Inman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced vanity article. Even if verifiable, this individual is only locally notable. Rklawton (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article calls him "nation's youngest Rotary International Member". If this is true, would that not constitute more than local notability? Aleta Sing 18:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a big if. I'm waiting to see some references step forward on the many impressive claims made in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V since no sources are given, and possible WP:BLP (even possitive false information can be regarded as negative for the person in question). Although I agree with the above comments that "nation's youngest Rotary International Member" is notable iff a published reliable secondary source is given (per WP:SECONDARY) and all the other claims not sourced is removed. Nsaa (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to notability and verifiability problems, the bulk of the article appears to have been written by the subject himself. Binarybits (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (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. Fails WP:NFF at this time. No prejudice to future recreation with suitable reliable third-party sourcing. A note to User:DoctorWho42 - canvassing is frowned upon here. Black Kite 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stingray Sam
- Stingray Sam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
lacks multiple independant reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite not being listed on IMDb (yet), it has garnered considerable attention from fans of either the band Billy Nayer Show and The American Astronaut as on the sites as Quiet Earth, Twitch, and io9 (most recently). Also, since the film is so new (even though it will be shown at the upcoming 2009 Sundance Film Festival in January) I think it would be more beneficial than burdensome to keep the article around until then.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence it passes any criterion of WP:MOVIE. Newness is not a reason to keep; assuming the film will become notable is crystalballing. (Note that, according to WP:MOVIE, screening at Sundance would only make the film notable if it wins (and that's not even assured), or if multiple national film critics review it from screenings there.) gnfnrf (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:NFF. Apart from the points made here by Gnfnrf, there has been no official confirmation that it would be screened at 2009 Sundance festival. Attention from fans of producer/director's earlier works is not a reason to create a standalone article. LeaveSleaves talk 23:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although any upcoming film is an uncertain thing, I'm disposed to go along with DrWho's reasoning, "more beneficial than burdensome to keep the article around". --Lockley (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Lockley received a talkpage message from DoctorWho42 inviting him to this discussion (which DoctorWho42 sent to many people who have edited articles about the director and his other films). While his (and others) opinions are welcome, they may not represent community consensus, taken as they are from a potentially biased cross-section of Wikipedia editors. gnfnrf (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd like DoctorWho42 and Lockley to WP:NOHARM. LeaveSleaves talk 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You know, to my knowledge I've never heard of DoctorWho42, gnfnrf, Cory McAbee, Stingray Sam, or anything relating here. If you want to claim the value of my opinion is tainted merely because my attention was drawn here, that's valid, I guess, but please don't accuse me of collusion or deliberate bias. --Lockley (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't claim that you've done anything but offer your opinion as you see it. The problem is, as an editor of another article relating to the director, you are inherently more interested in, and more likely to want to keep, this article than the average Wikipedia editor, so it is harder to discern consensus once you (and others like you) have joined the discussion. gnfnrf (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No opinion - I'm also one of the editors that DrWho42 notified although I have no clue as to why. I don't recall having anything to do with anything related to this article/film or the director. Take that for what you will. I don't agree with the "more beneficial than burdensome" argument. I'm not an admin but I'm fairly certain that it's not that hard for an admin to resurrect an article if it's deleted and then becomes notable. So really, it doesn't seem that burdensome. The film doesn't appear to have any independent sources that aren't blogs. The director appears to have a knack/talent/whatever for getting more well known actors to play roles in his films which is an implication of notability on his part. Works by notable artists are often accepted to be notable themselves. So, altogether, I'm on the fence. Dismas|(talk) 04:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While this could potentially be added to either Cory McCabe's page, or the Billy Nayer Show page, for structural purposes I feel it stands better alone. Regarding WP:NFF I would point out the last sentence in the first paragraph: failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Fans of both Cory McCabe and the Billy Nayer show tend to be rabid in a similarity to, for example, Apple fanatics. Crystal ball or no, even if this move is a flop, there is already and will be further interest in this film simply due to its cult nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agather (talk • contribs) 08:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agather is another canvassed editor. This is not a speedy deletion, this is a deletion discussion, which WP:MOVIE certainly does apply to. gnfnrf (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—obviously fails WP:NFF. The article at present makes no apparent claims of notability at all, and there's no reason to believe this will be anything but a minor cult film, at best. At worst, it will fail to see daylight just like the director's last effort.
By the way, I'm another nearly random editor canvassed by DoctorWho42. Dunno if he got the outcome he wanted from me, though. —johndburger 16:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep per [17][18][19][20], which seem to squeek pass WP:GNG and thus squeek past WP:NFF. And I'm here as a member of WikiProject Films who has a watch on this page. No one "notified" me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been looking for information about this movie and this is the only place where I found it. If it's in imdb it should at least be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.247.0 (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Delete !votes were all for short article, all keeps for the current state of the article, so all delete-reasoning is not applicable anymore. SoWhy 15:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Managed Security Service
- Managed Security Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of particular notability. Nothing more than a dictionary definition. Contested PROD. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The question here is not notability, as a google search for the exact phrase turns up many relevant hits. The question is whether the article can ever be more than a dictionary definition. I would argue right now that the article should be deleted as I am not confident any meaningful content can be added to make this entry encyclopedic. However, if such material can be added, I would change my vote to KEEP as the concept seems to be notable. Theseeker4 (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We have an article on information security, and frankly I find it hard to imagine that any content that might ever appear here could support a separate article rather than being merged to the existing one. Also, the non-standard capitalization of the title of this article makes me suspicious. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSimply not notable on it's own. It is on the fence regarding WP:DICTIONARY and could go eather way and as such, my weight is on the encyclopedic nature of this one line article... not going to expand on it's own as an article. My WP:HEY is that the creater or another editor show expansion in an encyclopedic way. --Pmedema (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I was the one who re-created the article. I assumed that WP had an article on MSSP's, but when I found out that we didnt, I added one. I really don't think it fits into the InfoSec article because yes, it is related to infosec, but it is a whole industry in and of itself. One of the largest MSSP's is SecureWorks, of which we have a nice WP article on. [21] To me, this is a subject matter that deserves an article. But honestly, if the consensus is that we shouldn't, that's fine with me--The only vested interest I have in this article is helping WP to become a more complete, comprehensive encyclopedia. Anapologetos (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's enough external references to write a good article about the subject, should someone care to do so. It seems to be notable enough to satisfy the guidelines. Wronkiew (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2008 (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; the article had a snowball's chance in hell. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 17:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Funky monkey magazine
- Funky monkey magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Upcoming "free monthly magazine" that has not yet been released and subsequently transgresses WP:CRYSTAL. No WP:RS either to establish notability. Flewis(talk) 14:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotion for non-notable upcoming mag. Pegasus «C¦T» 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - A lack of WP:RS, fails WP:CRYSTAL, falls under WP:SPAM. There is not a single reason to keep this. DARTH PANDAduel 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I had nominated this as a speedy under A7, but that was removed. I still think it applies. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Spam about a not-yet-released, non notable magazine which does not even make any claim to notability. Could be deleted speedily under either A7 or G11. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD A7. (EhJJ)TALK 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Agreed as an CSD A7. So tagged.--Pmedema (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete A7, G11, crystal. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Erdington. Would redirect to #Education, but currently no education info in target article. Black Kite 01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Queensbury special school
- Queensbury special school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable school lacking WP:RS for WP:V, and written from a somewhat childish standpoint, that will have to be fundamentally re-written if the article is kept. No incoming links from other wiki articles either. Flewis(talk) 14:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no claim of or evidence of notability, clear failure of WP:N so clear delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also written as an advertisement. (EhJJ)TALK 16:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge/redirect to Erdington#Education per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- TerriersFan. This is a dreadful little article, which might have been improved. However while the consensus is that High Schools are notable, speical schools probably are not. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far from dreadful this is a heart-warming little article, that unfortunately can not remain in WP. I for one would like to thank the author and anyone who helped them, and encourage them to continue to try to find ways to help wikipedia, and to not be distraught that this article needs to be deleted. Having said that, my !vote, reluctantly, is delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. Cunard (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diversified industrial staffing
- Diversified industrial staffing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This one seems to fall short of both notability and corporation guidelines. The article is referenced to a few lists and is briefly mentioned in passing in a few news articles, but this seems below the standard level of coverage expected of a notable company. Unless and until there arises some substantial sources, more than just a single sentance mention here and an entry on a list there, I don't think this meets notability standards. Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes the usual notability guideline without difficulty just using the sources in the article. WilyD 13:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is sufficiently cited. Icewedge (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are specific guidelines for the notability of organizations and companies that require there to be significant coverage by secondary sources in order for a company to be considered notable. I don't think a very short mention in Inc. for being the 4,552nd fastest growing private US company in 2007 and one or two newspaper articles that quote the founder of the company add up to significant coverage. Teleomatic (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was holding off on commenting on this, but since no new comments have been made recently, I am going to vote to delete. While there are numerous mentions, there do not seem to be any non-trivial mentions in relaible secondary sources. This means the company fails the notability guidelines and should be deleted. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. The references given are to a list of growing businesses, and to a local newspaper. The one is not in-depth coverage devoted to this specific business, and the other does not show more than local interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CmSiteNavigation
- CmSiteNavigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability and it seems to be entirely non-notable. Schuym1 (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as its the only FF extension I know of that exposes the LINK element in the UI, and quite comprehensively too. Support for this feature has historically been poor in browsers for a very long time despite LINK being part of HTML since 1995.[22] This support makes the subject notable. ⇔ ChristTrekker 03:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability per the guidelines and policies. Schuym1 (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was nominated within hours of its creation. Maybe it could be given a fair chance for editors to add references. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability per the guidelines and policies. Schuym1 (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Icewedge (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has now had time for notability to be established, and this hasn't been done. Does not meet guidelines for inclusion, fails notability criteria, and thus should be deleted. Even if it is the only product that does a certain thing a certain way, if the notability cannot be established according to Wikipedia guidelines, the article should be deleted. A fair chance has been provided, and the article still fails the criteria, so delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2008 (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. Black Kite 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobahn Country Club
- Autobahn Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable sports venue, fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Event_Venues/Sports_task_force/Notability#Race_tracks Oscarthecat (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the club itself merits its own article, although the concept of a private auto racing club is notable. Until something more specific can be created, this is worth a mention in Car club. There are private clubs like this, whose members pay for the upkeep of their own race track rather than a golf course. USA Today took notice of the trend, referring to a similar group, the "Monticello Motor Club" [23]. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as generic google search and search of Google News seems to find enough for expansion and sourcing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If you expand the Google News search to all dates [24] notability becomes obvious, with dedicated coverage such as this in the Chicago Tribune and this from ABC News. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2008 (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. Everyone seems to agree this is non-notable. But this proposal to merge one article into two others not about this subject doesn't make sense and can't be implemented. Anyone is free to add new sourced information as appropriate to the other related articles, and I'll make the draft available to anyone if they think it would help. Mangojuicetalk 16:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sacrum Torch
- Sacrum Torch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Article says this label was created to represent two artists. It should be merged to their page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or else merge into Doc Hammer and Lisa Hammer articles. Actually there are a few artists mentioned in the article, but two of them don't even have their own articles and a Google search does little to suggest notability for this record label. If it is kept, the article needs vast improvements, not the least of which is the clarification of its current status. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah it's pretty confusing. No references. The article actually says the one band with a wikipedia article (besides the hammers who seem to have created the label) is no longer represented by this "label": "When Mors Syphilitica was signed to Projekt Records, Sacrum Torch continued to be credited as the band's manager until it was replaced by Athan Maroulis." Thanks for taking the time to investigate and for your helpful comments.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Doc and Lisa Hammer articles. No claims to notability, no evidence of notability. Does not meet inclusion criteria so should be merged into the notable articles. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per above. Since this business exists solely as an adjunct to Doc and Lisa Hammer's musical careers, any questions about it should be answered at their articles. Alas, the most interesting bit of the article, the line about the sacrum being the bone that allowed the resurrection of the dead, is unreferenced. This at least is something I'd like to know more about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carrie Jones
- Carrie Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable singer fails WP:ENTERTAINER. ApprenticeFan (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious (which is the information most people looking her up will be looking for). She did sign with a notable label, but hasn't yet released any music with them. - Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per MacGyverMagic. No independent claims of notability, the show she placed on does not fulfill criteria 9 of WP:MUSIC (not a major competition) has no albums released, nor hit singles, etc. She is signed but that does not make her notable until (unless) she produces at least two albums. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2008 (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 unverified and unverifiable, hoax. Ѕandahl ♥ 01:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stuart Doughty, Jr.
- Stuart Doughty, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hoax? 0 ghits on various permutations of the name +wrestlemania. Editor's only contribution was to add this article and a link to it in List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni which was reverted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. No hits at all for "Stuart Peter Doughty," Stuart Doughty WWE or Stuart Doughty WCW other than this article. Seems to be no Stuart Doughty in professional wrestling at all, certainly not a WWE and ECW champion. According to the Mr. Perfect wiki article, Mr. Perfect was eliminated in 2002 (not 2001) from the Royal Rumble (not battle royal) by Triple H (not Stuart Doughty). Hoax article, clearly no verification available. Theseeker4 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely not verifiable and the creater appears to have been attempting to make a WP:Walled garden. All his changes were reverted. Obviouse WP:HOAX... anyone care to attempt a speedy on this as a WP:CSD G3? --Pmedema (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Likely hoax, fails notability guidelines. Possibly speedy G3. DavidWS (contribs) 19:20, 20 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harry McGregor (footballer)
- Harry McGregor (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league or in a cup competition for a fully professional club, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – PeeJay 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as he is yet to make a competitive first team appearance at a fully-pro level. Bettia (rawr!) 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While he hasn't played for Dunfurmline yet, he's a proffesional footballer and even if he wasn't he's in the first division, the highest level of competitive sport in Scottish football. It's only a matter of time before he plays, and it won't be long.--Patton123 18:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, the First Division is not the highest level of competitive football in Scotland, that would be the Scottish Premier League..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Del per nom. hasn't yet made it. maybe will, but recreate if and when, --ClubOranjeTalk 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2008 (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. The overwhelming notability and coverage of Barack Obama, along with the notability of the US Supreme Court, tends to trump other good-faith worries about this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates
- Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure speculation. Thiseach (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is an article about one of the most highly notable phenomena of "speculation" to occur in politics. As with George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates (which was a very well developed article long before Bush was faced with any actual vacancies on the court), we have copious references to discussions from serious and respected news sources putting forth specific names (some with great regularity) as likely Obama Supreme Court candidates. The speculation is not by Wikipedia editors, but by journalists for the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, and the like. bd2412 T 08:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- While there is an equivalent George W. Bush article, it was only created once Rehnquist's health had started to fail, and the Bush administration would have been giving the matter serious consideration. Reports were based not just on speculation, but presumably on reliable inside sources. Obama has not even been sworn in yet, let alone embarked on any type of search process.--Thiseach (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't matter who is doing the speculating. We don't list musical albums that are speculations either even if they're done by reliable sources. None of it can be confirmed. - Mgm|(talk) 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we have an article on speculation itself. That's the point - in the case of potential Supreme Court Justices, the speculation itself is notable. bd2412 T 14:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- "We don't list musical albums that are speculations either"? Category:Upcoming albums would seem to disagree with you there. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Is it speculation? Maybe. But speculation on the part of numerous cited reliable sources, not on the part of the article's creator. That makes it a notable topic in my book and (I'm assuming) Wikipedia's. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If we don't allow speculations by reliable sources, we can't have any articles on any future events. WP:FUTURE specifically says that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Quickly looking over this page, I didn't see anything that was unsourced; and if there was, it can easily be removed. With the many sources that this article has, it's obviously possible to reference the topic of this article, and as such plainly fulfills all our criteria. Nyttend (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nyttend. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nyttend said it all for me. — neuro(talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another ditto per Nyttend. 23skidoo (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Speculation about Obama's possible cadidates might belong on Wikinews, but it is not an encyclopedia article, even if thoroughly referenced. Aleta Sing 20:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just because the media speculates wildly about anything doesn't mean that the subject is suitable for an encyclopedia. This is just a list of people collected because someone thought that, should Barack Obama have the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (which he might not), he might appoint these people (or he might not). By my reckoning, this violates point 1 of WP:FUTURE. There might be some way to retool things to make this article into list of people considered to be potential Obama administration Supreme Court nominees, but even that is sketchy. gnfnrf (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone complaining about Presidential transition of Barack Obama#Appointment speculation, which sets forth a variety of possible picks for various cabinet positions. This is very similar, except much more thoroughly referenced and of much greater import. I can't imagine that anyone would dispute that a Supreme Court Justice, with a lifetime appointment (which in this day and age could easily translate to 30+ years) and no boss to answer to, is far more important than any cabinet officer. That's why the candidates are always asked about their potential Supreme Court appointments in the debates (no one asked Obama who his Secretary of Labor might be, or even what kind of Attorney General or Secretary of State he might pick. bd2412 T 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- But we know that Barack Obama will pick a Cabinet, and we know when (at least, to within a few months). We don't know if Barack Obama will ever pick a Supreme Court Justice at all. We don't know when. We don't know anything. We are randomly speculating that a Justice will die or retire, and saying, if that were to happen, what might happen next? Sure, other people have written about it, but just because other sources speculate doesn't mean that the result is encyclopedic. gnfnrf (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anyone complaining about Presidential transition of Barack Obama#Appointment speculation, which sets forth a variety of possible picks for various cabinet positions. This is very similar, except much more thoroughly referenced and of much greater import. I can't imagine that anyone would dispute that a Supreme Court Justice, with a lifetime appointment (which in this day and age could easily translate to 30+ years) and no boss to answer to, is far more important than any cabinet officer. That's why the candidates are always asked about their potential Supreme Court appointments in the debates (no one asked Obama who his Secretary of Labor might be, or even what kind of Attorney General or Secretary of State he might pick. bd2412 T 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I thoroughly agree with bd2412 T and Nyttend (talk). Since the article is thoroughly sourced, I see no problem with its discussion of future events. This isn't a willy-nilly discussion of unverifiable opinions. As bd2412 T accurately points out, the George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates article was already flushed out before Bush actually made any nominations. How is this article any different? Why complain now? I also think this article accurately represents an important issue that was often discussed during the 2008 presidential election: what type of Supreme Court nominee would Obama appoint? To say the topic is not newsworthy fails to acknowledge the active interest of both political parties, average American voters and the press in the subject. Wikipedia should not bury its head in the sand. As long as the article accurately represents the public discussion of possible Obama nominees, what is the problem? BoBo (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is just so much unnewsworthy idle speculation, why would someone write an article like this? The panel that developed the list in this article includes such respected legal minds as:
- Thomas Goldstein, head of the Supreme Court practice for Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
- David Yalof, associate professor of political science at the University of Connecticut
- Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago Law School professor and Obama advisor
- Charles Ogletree, Harvard Law School professor and Obama advisor
- Lucas A. Powe Jr., Supreme Court historian at the University of Texas School of Law
- Robert A. Levy, chair of the Cato Institute.
- I don't think a group like this would encourage idle, useless conversation. BoBo (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I (personally) don't think it's idle or unnewsworthy. But I don't think it's encyclopedic, either. Wikipedia is not for news. It's an encyclopedia. Consider this. Jimmy Carter never appointed a Supreme Court Justice. But at the beginning of his term, he might have. Should Wikipedia include an article about who he would have appointed, if he had the chance? I don't think so, because any speculation was just speculation having never come to pass. And for Barack Obama, we don't know that he will. We might think so. We might have a pretty strong hunch that he will. But we don't know. gnfnrf (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if Obama never gets to appoint a Justice (which is highly, highly unlikely given the history of Justices resigning in time to allow an ideologically sympathetic President pick their replacement), the discussion is notable as a snapshot of who are the judges and other officials thought fit by Court experts to be probable appointees at this point in American history. bd2412 T 04:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I (personally) don't think it's idle or unnewsworthy. But I don't think it's encyclopedic, either. Wikipedia is not for news. It's an encyclopedia. Consider this. Jimmy Carter never appointed a Supreme Court Justice. But at the beginning of his term, he might have. Should Wikipedia include an article about who he would have appointed, if he had the chance? I don't think so, because any speculation was just speculation having never come to pass. And for Barack Obama, we don't know that he will. We might think so. We might have a pretty strong hunch that he will. But we don't know. gnfnrf (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is just so much unnewsworthy idle speculation, why would someone write an article like this? The panel that developed the list in this article includes such respected legal minds as:
- Delete - There are no reliable sources about candidates for Supreme Court for an administration not in power for openings that do not exist. DreamGuy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Of course there are reliable sources. Plenty of reliable sources are discussing this subject. Article has 31 references, most of them to sources that are on this very same topic and are reliable. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It would be one thing if a page were created for a John McCain or an Al Gore or a John Kerry or a Bob Dole administration, since those presidential administrations will never exist and therefore will never be in power. However, it's obvious that Barack Obama will be the next president, and it's also obvious that the Supreme Court of the United States is one of the single biggest marks that a president can leave from a legacy standpoint. (It's not like this article is Barack Obama Secretary of Health and Human Services candidates, for instance.) And with an 88-year-old justice, another in lousy health and another widely reported to be disgruntled, it's reasonable to expect that a thorough online encyclopedia would contain a thoughtful list of possible candidates, raised solely by experts in a position to know and published in respected news sources with outstanding reporting. With all due respect, this is hardly "pure speculation." And there are plenty of reliable sources, including those quoted in these articles who have direct ties to the Obama administration, like Cass Sunstein. This article easily meets point 1 of WP:FUTURE, since a Barack Obama Supreme Court vacancy is indisputably notable, and that a Barack Obama Supreme Court vacancy is almost certain to occur during his presidency. Wikipedia should be prepared for such an occurrence, which is why this article was created. What an atrocious misapplication of policy. Jarvishunt (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Speculation without any foundation. He's not even President yet.—Markles 00:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources are discussing this; it's appropriate and encyclopedic for us to summarize their conclusions. It would be inappropriate for us to say "Obama will nominate So-and-so", but it's entirely appropriate for us to say "Scholars and commentators have mentioned So-and-so, Such-and-such and Thingummybob as possible nominees," with citations to said scholars and commentators. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even if Obama does not ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court, it makes sense to have an article on the potential picks of a president to the highest judicial office in the land. This is especially so given the plentiful media speculation on Obama's picks, which is driven by the fact that he almost certainly will have to nominate someone at some point. Reflecting this is hardly a bad idea. Johnleemk | Talk 07:48, 23 November 2008 (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. Elonka 19:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rachel robson
- Rachel robson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article about a woman whose supposed claim to fame is being the first female gas engineer in the UK. I strongly suspect that this is a hoax as there are no sources available to verify any of the claims made in this article, all of which are highly dubious. Bettia (rawr!) 16:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.I can't find anything referencing "rachel robson" as a gas engineer, and I strongly suspect this comes under the heading of WP:BULLSHIT. Assuming for a second that this is a real person the lack of sources available is indicative in a way of her lack of notability; first female engineer for a particular company? First female engineer in the country maybe (see Elizabeth Garrett Anderson) but this person doesn't have a shred of notability to her name. Ironholds (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree that this smells like BS. Searching for "Rachel Robson" gives a radio show host on KJHK, a professor at Doane College, and various blog and myspace pages which do not seem to have anything to do with the person described in the article. This is therefore a hoax article, unless references can be provided, but since none seem to exist, delete is the verdict. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, G3 (hoaxes count as vandalism). Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speedy under A7. Zero web results for person with said backgroung. LeaveSleaves talk 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Investigated and is a WP:HOAX Even the name of the author "Edmund Goodson" who supposedly won a prize for writing about her has 0 Ghits. I think a CSD G3 is appropriate here. Didn't tag it... waiting for more consensus --Pmedema (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tagged as A7 and linked to consensus here... Nouse4aname (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas Friesen
- Nicholas Friesen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable artist. No references in the article and nothing of relevance that I could find by google searching. Nothing in googlenews[25]. Even a plain googlesearch for his name gives only 256 hits[26], most of which are not related to him and none relevant to him that appear to be reliable sources. The most relevant thing I see there is his myspace page. Fails WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:N. Claims he is "award winning" yet no evidence of this is provided in the article or by searching. Almost the entire article describes local contribution, which is insufficient for inclusion. Appears on a local radio station but is not nationally syndicated so fails notability guidelines there. Also, photos claimed to have appeared in a national publication, UR Magazine, but this publication itself does not seem notable, and even if it is, having a few photos published there does not confer notability on Nicholas Friesen, so delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable. Extensive search of both "nicholas Friesen" and "Nick Friesen" found no credible third party sources. Jenafalt (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He seems to be an "emerging" artist. So let's wait for him to emerge. -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to World Gastroenterology Organisation. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WGO Foundation
- WGO Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No third party sources (all references are from worldgastroenterology.org). Major portion of the text is a copy-paste from World Gastroenterology Organisation. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 10:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While this article is similar to the World Gastroenterology Organisation we are of the same organization however a seperate organization. Naturally there will be some similarities. The World Gastroenterology Organisation article contains no third party references yet has not been deleted either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert.m (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several third party references —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert.m (talk • contribs) 12:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References to other Wikipedia articles for clarrification of used terms have also just been added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert.m (talk • contribs) 12:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to World Gastroenterology Organisation. Not independently notable, does not exist for any purpose other than to support and raise funds for the above organization, therefore does not need a stand-alone article. This is essentially part of WGO so having a separate article about the foundation is not necessary and should be eliminated. Theseeker4 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with WGO. The existence of a legal distinction between two closely intertwined organizations does not entitle them to two separate articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I have merged the foundation article into the other one and placed a redirect from the foundations article to its section of the organisations article. Issue closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlambert.m (talk • contribs) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the Boys (Katy Perry Song)
- One of the Boys (Katy Perry Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources stating this will be released as a single, even tho "Katy said" she plans to make a video. Cannot find any internet confirmation of a release. A #86 chart peak in Australia does not necessarily make this notable, particularly since many songs chart these days (usually for a week) from unsolicited digital sales. Suggest merging to the album. - eo (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If we merge and delete, a new page will just have to be made when it is released in North America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.86.245 (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with One of the Boys (Katy Perry album), article fails WP:MUSIC for no independent confirmation from reliable sources. Also violates WP:CRYSTAL as it the single's release is not almost certain to happen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewDude (talk • contribs)
- Boldly merge as this particular song does not pass WP:NSONGS- but don't make an AfD if you don't intend to delete.--Boffob (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge: technically it is the 3rd single in Australia. it has been added to radio and now sits just outside the top 50 on iTunes so it will most likely enter top 50 on the ARIA charts sometime soon. So either way merge now, and re-open it when it finally enters the top 50 on the ARIA Singles Chart. I think the start of the article should be rephrased. So far Australia where the single will be released.Getluv (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the song has (or is?) charted in an important chart like the Australian one. Further, sooner or later, someone will create this article entry, when the song be officially released as a single. Goddess (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the point is that there is no source anywhere stating that this will be the third single, even in Australia. "Minimal play in the U.S." (according to the article) comes from what source? Also, having to recreate it later is not an automatic excuse to keep - that happens to a lot of song articles when people jump the gun. - eo (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2008 (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. Although this topic indeed veers rather close to notability, there is a consensus that it does not come within the bounds of WP:ATHLETE. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Anstiss
- Richard Anstiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league or in a cup competition for a fully professional club, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he plays for Leamington F.C., a non-league club. Fails WP:ATHLETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReviewDude (talk • contribs) 11:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nothing more to be said. Bettia (rawr!) 11:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 12:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, fails basically WP:ATHLETE. abf /talk to me/ 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He played in the UEFA Cup while with Aberystwyth. As for referring to who he plays for now, Julian Joachim plays for Kings Lynn nowadays and if you only consider current situations then you'd have him as non-notable as well.WikiGull (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that he played in the UEFA Cup is irrelevant - he was not playing for a fully professional club at the time. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tending towards keep While I'm not that familiar with European football, it seems that such a high competition as the UEFA Cup, if it's open to non-fully-professional clubs, could qualify him under the criteria for those who aren't professionals: amateur sportspersons who compete at the highest level of amateur sport are considered notable by WP:BIO. This is, of course, assuming that the Champions League is not open to amateur clubs... If we say that he doesn't qualify as a professional, isn't it reasonable to say that he counts under the criteron for those who are not professionals? Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But he isn't competing at the highest level possible - he could have played for other Welsh clubs such as Cardiff or Swansea (or indeed, as he is English, English clubs) who do compete in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "assuming that the Champions League is not open to amateur clubs....." - actually it is, as clubs from all the aforementioned countries in which there are no professional clubs compete in it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You say Champions League, thats the wrong comp, he played in the UEFA Cup! Considering that is classed as European football even at the qualifying round level I am inclined to go with Keep and considering that is a top level competition he should pass WP:Athlete on that note. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But he doesn't - WP:ATHLETE says nothing about European competitions. And anyway, playing for a minor semi-pro club in the qualifying rounds is really nothing to get excited about. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aberystwyth Town F.C. is playing in the Welsh Premier League. He has played top level football in Wales. A semi-professional club where he has won honours with that club and proceeded into European competition. I'd say as this is the highest level in Armature Welsh football you can get I would give him the honour of passing WP:Athlete. Govvy (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But he doesn't - WP:ATHLETE says nothing about European competitions. And anyway, playing for a minor semi-pro club in the qualifying rounds is really nothing to get excited about. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You say Champions League, thats the wrong comp, he played in the UEFA Cup! Considering that is classed as European football even at the qualifying round level I am inclined to go with Keep and considering that is a top level competition he should pass WP:Athlete on that note. Govvy (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Played in top level of football in Wales. UEFA Cup appearances. FA Cup appearances. Hundreds of media references. Seems notable enough. Nfitz (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan Fairhurst
- Nathan Fairhurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Young football player who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Prod removed without explanation by article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it needs more details, and perhaps a re-write, he has (according to the article itself) made an appearance for Wrexham, a professional football club, who play in The Football League, which is professional. He's therefore notable under WP:ATHLETE. - RD (Talk) 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wrexham may be a professional club but they actually play in the Conference National, which is NOT a fully professional league. Seeing as he has only made one appearance for them, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr!) 11:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. When and if he plays professionally, he can be re-added. -- Alexf(talk) 12:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Another 'not yet' player.--ClubOranjeTalk 23:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nomination, not yet, not now. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not just yet, at the moment he fails WP:ATHLETE. — neuro(talk) 06:22, 20 November 2008 (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 this merda as withdrawn. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latin profanity
- Latin profanity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Page fails WP:NOT#Dictionary. Content lacks in proper sourcing, causing it to fail WP:NOR. Page would potentially be better suited for wikitionary. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is not a page from a dictionary - it is suitable for an encyclopedia. The article is well sourced, and there are piles and piles of doctrine on the Latin language already, some of which are cited - the topic's not being originally-researched here. Wiktionary wouldn't take it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It remains a list of dictionary definitions. Wikipedia is not a list of profanities, nor a list of dictionary definitions. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's an encyclopedic subject. Also the sourcing can be fixed, there's no need to AfD for this. bogdan (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Encyclopedic, can be properly sourced, and Wiktionary would not be able to discuss it in prose in the same way. A from L.A. (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is more than just dicdefs; there's a lot here on linguistics, cultural attitudes to profanity, and human sexuality. Moreover, it's coherent, so its not an indiscriminate collection of factoids. The sourcing can definitely be improved; indeed, I have some relevant source books at home. They're currently packed, but once they're back on the shelves, I'll see what I can do. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sourcing can be improved. Several of the more important sources for this topic are already present in the references section. The article is not perfect but obviously not just a list of dictionary definitions. Please close this AfD quickly. Aramgar (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously because they are LONG dictionary definitions makes them encyclopedic. How did I miss that? *rolls eyes* Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aramgar: Unless WP:SNOW applies, there's no good reason to close an AfD early. There's no reason for this not to run for the usual five days. Kyaa: You may find sarcasm less than constructive; I think it's fair to assume Aramgar has commented in good faith. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I started this article. When I did, I did my best to make certain that each entry contained as much cultural, literary, and historical information as I had available, to preserve it from precisely the charge that it was only a list of definitions. It is also a part of a series of articles on profanity by language, which contains other favorite articles, including another I started (Esperanto profanity), other fascinating subjects of legitimate curiosity (Profanity in American sign language), and model articles I used to format this one (Quebec French profanity). Please close this so I can move on to the more important subject of collecting material for Proto-Indo-European profanity. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 12:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Other Stuff Exists is an argument to avoid in these discussions. I'm sure you find this fascinating, but Wikipedia should be an encycopedia, not an in-depth dictionary of profanity. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article needs cleanup, but that doesn't require an AfD. — neuro(talk) 12:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AlexTiefling said what I wanted to say. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn It sounds like my main concerns will be address per the promises above, I'll let this go. I thank everyone who contributed to this discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daisy wang
- Daisy wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:N. Google news results. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 10:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This looks like the subject's CV. Wikipedia is not a web host. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Yes, fails any notability. Obviously to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:NOT#HOST. - RD (Talk) 11:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per all above. abf /talk to me/ 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As above. It also seems too much of a coincidence that this article about Mrs Woods is written by a Mr Woods. -- SGBailey (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (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. However, I've added both advertising and COI tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disaster Risk Management in East Asia
- Disaster Risk Management in East Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As was determined during the CSD discussion from this article's previous incarnation, the author is part of the team at the World Bank that compiled this information on its own activities and, as such, this is original research in violation of Wikipedia policy. In addition, there is a conflict of interest.
—Largo Plazo (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notability established the usual way, no WP:NOR problems (as this is all already published information from reliable sources). WilyD 17:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reporting on one's own activities certainly is original research. The fact that one has written it elsewhere previously doesn't make it less so. And the "reliable source" given is the author's own work, so it doesn't qualify as an unbiased third-party reliable source. Finally, I'm adding WP:COI to my original entry. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:COI is not a criteria for deletion, so the fact that the author of the article is citing his own work and has a vested interest should have no bearing on whether to keep or eliminate this ariticle. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs a whole lotta work, but original research nor conflict of interest are not reasons to delete an article. It should be templated accordingly instead. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my impression that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" is dispositive, and that it means that such material should be removed. If a whole article is original research, leading to the entire content being removed, then it's an empty article, and an empty article is indeed subject to deletion. There is no need to keep an article around, consisting entirely of Wikipedia violations, as a placeholder until someone else, some day, decides to replace the content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all with content that does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should review WP:DELETE. Original research is not a grounds for deletion. Only if it has been demonstrated that attempts to find sources failed should an article be a candidate for deletion based on original research. And since the discussion page is non-existent, I'd say that hasn't been shown yet. And original research does not need to be removed without prejudice, citation templates can be inserted. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, understood. Unfortunately, that means that the entire strongly-worded first paragraph of WP:OR is a farce. Wikipedia does publish original research for as long as it takes for someone else to come along and annotate or edit it sufficiently so that it no longer qualifies as such—even if that never happens. I recommend that that paragraph be revised to say something like, "Original research is subject to editing and annotation so that it is no longer such" while leaving out the empty bluster. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should review WP:DELETE. Original research is not a grounds for deletion. Only if it has been demonstrated that attempts to find sources failed should an article be a candidate for deletion based on original research. And since the discussion page is non-existent, I'd say that hasn't been shown yet. And original research does not need to be removed without prejudice, citation templates can be inserted. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 23:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my impression that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought" is dispositive, and that it means that such material should be removed. If a whole article is original research, leading to the entire content being removed, then it's an empty article, and an empty article is indeed subject to deletion. There is no need to keep an article around, consisting entirely of Wikipedia violations, as a placeholder until someone else, some day, decides to replace the content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all with content that does. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article was previously speedy deleted as a copyright infringement as it was a direct cut and paste from here. This latest version is only mostly a cut and paste, but is still a breach of copyright. In the interests of helping the author who is clearly new to Wikipedia, I'll try giving it as rewrite over the course of the day, to fix the copyvio issue if not the other concerns. Euryalus (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it is indeed original research. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is indeed "attributable to a reliable, published source". Juzhong (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and then turn it into an article about World Bank Disaster Risk Management in general. Juzhong (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The idea of original research is applied differently to highly reliable sources: for example, we accept what the United States Census Bureau has to say about census-designated places or minor civil divisions, both of which are terms created and used by the Census Bureau. Most biographies of members of the US Congress are based on their entries in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Unless we're going to argue that the World Bank is not a highly reliable source, I don't see why we should apply this any differently. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A key component of "original research" involves researchers using Wikipedia as a platform for reporting their own findings/results for a particular project or study, in comparison with people writing general articles on a topic and basing their information on reports from third parties. You didn't indicate that the census or congressional articles you're talking about were written by the people at the Census Bureau or Congress who are themselves the originators of the information they're recording on Wikipedia. The issue is whether the Wikipedia article is itself original research. It's fine for the reliable sources to be original research as long as they are reliable, which is usually the case when they are the defining' resources for something or other, as in the case of Census Bureau terminology. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this enlightening discussion. It's given me a lot of insight into how wiki works, and I'd be happy to amend the text in the entry as appropriate. Could someone kindly let me know how I can get in touch with them to do this? Thanks in advance.Eapdrm (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2008 (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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Origin of Capitalism
- The Origin of Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a scholarly essay but does not assert the importance or notability of the essay, and makes no note of its impact. Article contains only references to the essay. Prod was removed by article creator with the reason we can't delete articles without discussion. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and recreate as redirect to History of capitalism. The subject really isn't notable, but the title itself is useful. Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why delete first? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. No significant impact of the essay itself found. However, considering the author herself is notable, the article should be redirected to the author's article. LeaveSleaves talk 17:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book is referenced by 126 other academics [27]--Sum (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those Google hits discusses the book itself directly in detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not "google hits" from webpages but actual academic journals publications. One of the reviews is by Kevin R Cox in the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Volume 91 Issue 4, pp.787-793
- Since the citation you just provided is to the index, I assume you've been having trouble finding the actual text of the review as well. If all you can find is one pay source, I don't think that alone is enough to write an article. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to disambiguation page that points to History of capitalism (per Nyttend) and Ellen Meiksins Wood (per LeaveSleaves). There's a good chance someone searching for the term will be looking for either. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tails Doll
- Tails Doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is about a character who appears as an unlockable bonus in a single Sonic the Hedgehog game. Such a character in no way warrents their own article, especially when many other more prominent characters are simply contained with the "List of Sonic characters" page (as Tails Doll is too). In addition, the content of the article itself is of little value. Prophaniti (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this character is already covered elswhere, the page can be redirected instead of deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, and that'd be fine by me. My intent is simply to get rid of the page, be it by redirect or deletion. Prophaniti (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, preferably speedily, to Miles "Tails" Prower. After all the merging of Sonic characters that went on, I'm honestly surprised this one got turned back into an article. Nifboy (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable third-party sources on this topic, and thus fails WP:V and WP:N. Randomran (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: into the "list" article. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters. Do not merge unverified information. Marasmusine (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Same reason. — Supuhstar * § 18:19, 23 November 2008 (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 WP:SNOW keep. Significant coverage be damned! Non-admin closure. Pcap ping 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Flirt Club
- Anti-Flirt Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be sourced entirely from a blog (shorpy.com) run by the well-known historian "Dave". Some of the discussion on the talk page indicates hoax or parody elements. Given who was involved in this article (hint: recently "deceased" ArbCom candidate), this AfD can reasonably be construed as shameless drama whoring on my behalf. Pcap ping 08:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:I have no reason to see this article as anything other than genuine. It is recorded in th Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA which I would have thought was a suitable enough reference, bearing in mind the dubious references used for some of the information on porn stars and the like. As a piece of social history it not only amuses it educates. What seems to us funny was real life in the 1920; in an era when no-one thought it unusual to ban black people from voting and ban alcahol, Ms reighly and her friends seem perfectly feasable. She is part of America's social history. If children etc, for whom we are writing this project are not amused they won't read, and they won't be educated. If the Library of congress is running a hoax then delete, I strongly suspect it is not. Giano (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - Google books should allay any fears as to the veracity of the article's content. Nancy talk 08:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some mentions in google books, but nothing substantive. The references hastily added to the article are one-sentence. That and one photograph in the library of congress does not seem enough to pass WP:N. The details from the article are unverifiable as it stands. Pcap ping 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be a bit of a disagreement between sources whether the organization started in 1920 or 1923, but it is certainly not a hoax. The first book cited only shows a caption on Google Books and should be read in full before being called a one-liner (Remember, references don't need to be online). Nothing here that can't be fixed with editing over deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I thought at first it might be a hoax, but discovered the pic on LoC website. You can't of course have an article purely because you find a document mentioning it in a large database documenting modern social history (pure WP:OR), but as shown the club is discussed in a modern academic book (so passing WP:N and WP:V ), if only briefly. That's certainly more than many articles have, certainly more than the horde of fiction characters, tv episodes, college athletes and British footballers who've never kicked a professional ball. The question then is what individual parts are and are not verifiable. This is a different question. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Pcap ping 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, just because someone started an essay with that title doesn't mean one can't analyse wikipedia's content structurally. :p In fact, one has to ... so this response [I guess you think it's a counter-argument] is rather odd and silly. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Pcap ping 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With a bit of work this article will make a great basis for a DYK. Poltair (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Needs improvement, but definitely not a hoax. — neuro(talk) 12:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - between google books and scholar there are enough sources to show this is a notable subject. Has anyone noticed that it appears to be snowing slightly? PhilKnight (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BrokeNCYDE
- BrokeNCYDE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band which fails the notability guidelines at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Previous article at Brokencyde has been speedily deleted (A7) eight times. A7 speedy (unasserted notability) for this article has been declined. JD554 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Broken (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added by Cunard (talk) on 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, notability still hasn't been asserted. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the admin who (barely) declined the CSD speedy deletion, I nonetheless don't think this topic meets WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO 5 because only one album has been produced by one of the more important indie labels. [Phlyght] 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I am the creator of the article in question. This band has performed on Total Request Live[28] a couple months ago, which matches with number 10 of the musical notability guidelines. This is the only claim to notability, so would that be enough? I want to add that, but I am not sure what "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." means exactly. Thank you very much, as I surely want to make this page notable enough. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be. Please add and cite it with a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If that is not enough, nothing more can be done I suppose. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be. Please add and cite it with a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I am the creator of the article in question. This band has performed on Total Request Live[28] a couple months ago, which matches with number 10 of the musical notability guidelines. This is the only claim to notability, so would that be enough? I want to add that, but I am not sure what "(But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." means exactly. Thank you very much, as I surely want to make this page notable enough. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Eight deletions, still not notable. Remake it when/if they become notable, not before. Also noting that the album article The Broken (Album) was created along with this one and should be counted in this AfD as well. --Ifrit (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Their only claim to fame seems to be having lots of myspace friends. Anyone can get lots of myspace through use of add bots and/or add whoring. 209.136.161.135 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One hundred fifty thousand friends is not too impressive compared with other, more popular artists, although I agree that those techniques could have been applied. I believe the song plays are a bit harder to "whore". But all in all, their notability is not impressive enough for inclusion. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, song counts are pretty easy to whore, and still may be, unless myspace changed how they embed the players. Song counts will often be scored not when the song is completed but when the song begins, so by embedding the player in bulletins and other pages, it was easy to rack up high play counts.75.33.107.122 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977
(talk) 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When this band is deleted, please deleted The Broken (Album) as well. Cunard (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC still. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Soi dissant "editors" here are too quick to delete articles just because they haven't heard of that particular band, or artist, or musician, or historical figure, etc. Meanwhile there are a pathetic amount of articles of questionable usefulness and "notability" dedicated to anime and other insipid subjects. I've only heard of this group in passing but if every obscure village ever mentioned in Star Wars can have its own article then surely there's enough room on the servers for an article about this band. -- Pen the Booker (69.242.225.132 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If the article can show that the band are notable per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO then it can be kept. At the moment it doesn't do that. Once all the evidence has been gathered to show the band are notable then the article can be recreated. --JD554 (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all for deleting that crap too. 75.33.107.122 (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this self-promoting crap. Wikipedia is a source for facts, and shouldn't be abused by some kids trying to get rich by making terrible music with their parents' money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.120.66 (talk) 08:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MUSIC clearly states: "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a (...) performance in a television show." Brokencydes TRL appearanve is clearly sufficent to meet this criterion. Furtermore the article also meets the criterion "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.245.179 (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per 85.227.245.179, it seems to meet criteria 10 and possibly 4, which, while a bit thin, does meet the criteria of notability. Darquis (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spiral Beach
- Spiral Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entire article based on sourceless claims. Fails to meet WP:Music.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiesaysno (talk • contribs) 07:41, 19 November 2008
- Keep The Charlie Bartlett has already mentioned them for a while as providing a music video. While it is not yet referenced, I have the confidence that it could be, which would mean they meet the criteria. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When an article is missing sources, the solution is to add the sources, not delete the article. I've added eight references, and there are more out there. This article's subject meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1; so, keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per excellent sources provided by Paul Erik; meets WP:MUSIC and WP:V. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:DoubleBlue. DigitalC (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, per CSD G12 (copyright infringement), although there were significant additional problems with this article including attacks on named individuals, soapboxing and attendant disruption to this AfD. EyeSerenetalk 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gallo's Egg
- Gallo's Egg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is a copy and paste of a report on aids denialism - no encyclopedic content, unsalvageable, author removed prod Jac16888 (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to alleged copyright infringement: This article published the report written by Investigator Clarke Baker. The report has been published on a number of websites already and is not copyright protected. There is no copyright violation regarding this article and the copyright infringement notice should be removed.
[Links to various websites removed]
The report itself does not make any copyright claims that prohibit distribution on Wiki or anywhere else.
There is no copyright infringement. This report is an extremely important and controversial document that cannot be withheld from the public.
- Response:This article is not a report in support of AIDS denialsm but was commissioned by Roland Chalifoux of Semmelweis International to investigate the integrity of Professor Duesberg and journalist Celia Farber. Both have been accused in the past to 'contribute to mass murder' for their alternative views with regards to the causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS. Investigator and former LAPD detective Clarke Baker decided to investigate Professor Duesberg and Celia Farber free of charge and to claim this report is not factual or biased or in support of Professor Duesberg or Celia Farber is incorrect. It is a factual report, copy right free for any one to read, available from Clarke Bakers website. Therefore this article is not breaching any copy right infringements.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 07:24, Nov 19, 2008 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Why delete this article? It has proper references and Clarke Baker is able to reference all the claims he makes. Maybe inconvenient to some, but I do not see why this should not be made available to the public unless Wikipedia wants to suppress important information that the public should have access to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradhand89 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Gradhand89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do Not Delete - I read the article and find the report of interest to the public. This report should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avantya (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Avantya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - as a rant/unsynthesized stream of consciousness/no evidence of notability. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete this article does not fall into the category of soapboxing. That would imply propaganda or similar content. This article is a factual report that does not have any political or religious message. The report can back up any of its claims and provide appropriate references. Soapboxing is not applicable here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 08:27, Nov 19, 2008 (UTC)— Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete as WP:TLDR, both the article and the AFD response above, and for soapboxing. MuZemike (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete- I do not agree with deletion of this article. I have been affected by HIV for many years and this is very interesting new and important information to any one living with this virus. Disagreeing with its content does not warrant deletion. The article should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quikfinish (talk • contribs) 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Quikfinish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete: I nominated this for speedy deletion. This is apparently copyright violation from a publication by a non-notable individual on a fringe subject, by a single-purpose account who seems to have appeared to disparge the discover of the link between HIV and AIDS. I'm not sure of any link to previously banned users- that would seem to be the only purpose this discussion could serve. Nevard (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete this article does not infringe any copyright and to claim it is a publication on a fringe subject is utter nonsense. Since when is AIDS a fringe subject? Since when is a report that uncovers fraud and the intent to cause harm to potentially millions of HIV+ people a fringe subject? Since when is suppressing the truth a fringe subject? This article cannot be deleted unless Wikipedia wants to be accused of providing one sided and biased information to the general public.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — Whereistheproof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete: I've actually listed to a lecture on AIDS recently and the lecturer, an expert in his field, postulated that inciting the immune system contributed to the development of AIDS, rather than the large viral load. This was supported by experimental evidence of primates or monkeys (don't remember which) not developing SIV despite being infected with the virus and several other studies. Nevertheless, the size and aim of this particular text makes it unencyclopedic. Any encyclopedic material should be covered in the articles about HIV and AIDS. Wikipedia is not the place to republish reports verbatim. - Mgm|(talk) 09:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No assertion of notability. Reinstate the article if it gets attention from the press, but until then it seems that Wikileaks or Wikisource would be a better venue for this than Wikipedia. And it is almost certainly the worst formatted article I have seen - I'll swear I saw emails in the body of the article. If the report does achieve notability the article will need a great deal of work. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:21, 19 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Circle Biodiesel & Ethanol Corporation
- Circle Biodiesel & Ethanol Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page appears to be promotional in nature, lacks sources, and lacks notability (look carefully at the secondary sources; one is merely a press release and the other is superficial coverage.) These issues were broached previously, but the author has failed to address them. E8 (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't fine any reliable sources that establish notability. The best I could find on Google were a couple of what look like press releases. [29] [30] One is on Reuters.com, but I still wouldn't call it reliable. LinguistAtLarge 17:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete almost no third party coverage Google news search]. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Icewedge (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Walton (story artist)
- Mark Walton (story artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable story artist and minor voice actor. No significant coverage apart from the Bolt film. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. He has not "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." He has had one semi-significant side role in a recently released film. He does not have "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Its doubtful most people even know his name apart from Bolt. Nor has he "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's had multiple supporting roles in three separate Disney films, this should be enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability shouldn't just rely on his acting work, he's also done work behind the scenes. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think there is enough media coverage to establish notability. [31], [32], [33]. LinguistAtLarge 18:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has had sufficient major roles in major films Gary King (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even if he's not well-known at the moment, his role in Bolt will establish his notability. The character is a major character in the film and is quite memorable. Oldiesmann (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tosca Teran
- Tosca Teran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable - very minor artist Pince Nez (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and when the editor who created the article has not worked on a single other article, it always suggests vanity to me... Pince Nez (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks fairly NN, google comes back with the artist's personal website and not much else. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 06:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, couldn't find any sources. By the way, what exactly makes someone a new media? 0 Mgm|(talk) 09:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable with no third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails basically our notabillity criteria. abf /talk to me/ 13:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
High Point (Hot Springs, AR)
- High Point (Hot Springs, AR) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable private residence. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If A7 covered buildings I'd say speedy, but it looks like this will have to go through the five day process. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Average houses without significant coverage can't possibly be notable. Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claim to notability here. --Lockley (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability claims not supported by independent reliable source interest. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slow Death Factory
- Slow Death Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band is not notable--no record deal, no other coverage that I can find. Good luck to them, but they are not WP material (yet). Drmies (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and band's name. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Slysplace talk ♫ 14:15, 20 November 2008 (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. StarM 04:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fernand Goux
- Fernand Goux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
All but identical copy of an article that was previous deleted, which I came here to speedy, but there seem to be an insistence that it is somehow different, so it's back to AfD. The individual in this article does not meet WP:N: there is not sufficient non-trivial coverage in third-party, reliable sources to have an article about this individual. While there are many trivial references scattered across blogs and unreliable sources, there is nothing that would allow for a full, neutral article to be written. The three available sources are the best of the lot, so let's briefly examine them:
- A brief, one-two page biography of the individual on an amateur hobbyist's website. I have no real issues with this source, but it is hardly enough to maintain an entire article.
- A trivial mention that Goux indeed exists
- An article that uses source #1 as its primary source and thus repeats the information in a slightly different fashion
This material, along with a selection of trivial references scattered across a Google search are not enough to sustain an article. Cheers, CP 03:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNotability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect Sufficient notability for a mention as one of longest living survivors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aargh delete, OK, he said grudgingly. I can't find anymore than you did, though I tried. If I had a Minitel finding French sources wouldn't be so difficult. Yes, we only have one source, by a goodwilling amateur whose word I don't have to doubt--but one really isn't enough. Good work by nom. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G4) — recreation of deleted material but under a different name. Yeah, right. MuZemike (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep'. The source that mentions Goux exists should help the reliability of the primary source along. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep following the evidence provided by User:Ryoung122. -- Mgm|(talk)
- Delete -sourced but no significant coverage, thus limited notability. It could possibly be merged into an article about WW1 veterans if there is such a thing.--Boffob (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the last World War I vets, there's a lot less notable people on the wikiCzolgolz (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable (and deserving of some respect) as one of last remaining veterans. Notable as raising issue of official recognition of poilus. Bazj (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - sources fail to establish notability. Worthy of a mention in List of veterans of World War I who died in 2008, but there's nothing substantial to support a full article. - fchd (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The last one or two surviviving veterans of a war oare of sufficient public interest for notability, if there's enough material to write an article,as i think there is here. DGG (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I believe three sources in enough to confer notability, especially in the case of one of the last WWI vets. The French government has not recognised Goux, so little is expectedly available. Oh, and the first source is actually a journal article republished on some guy's website. It can be removed if that is the concensus. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For those who are wondering, I was canvassed, although Goux is on my watchlist and I would have noticed this AFD anyway. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. First, I'd like to correct some errors in the rationale for deletion:
1. Frederic Mathieu is not an "amateur hobbyist" but has been cited in the international press as an expert on the subject. For example, he arranged the meeting between Henry Allingham and Robert Meier in 2006. Here's another example:
http://quartierlibre.ca/Les-ders-des-ders
2. The original deletion seemed to be an "add-on" after the Pierre Picault article was nominated for deletion. Yet the sources for the Goux case were more reliable and numerous than the other one, so it was unfair having both articles tied together in one AFD.
3. The rationale is that Mr. Goux was not an official "poilu," however even the count of veterans cited by CNN included him:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/11/war.vets.photos/?iref=mpstoryview
This man is a presidential photographer, I disagree with the assertion that all of this is just blog-talk. At the very least, the article should be given some leeway because the story is still being written...remember the French gov't reversed their stance on the Rene Riffaud case. The policy of who counts as a veteran seemed to be designed to save government pension funds, a different motivation than commemoration. In the USA, if someone served one hour on a train, that counts as "veteran" status. Wikipedia's policy should reflect international consensus, not nationalistic rules which are often tailored for other ends.
Finally, there seems to be too much information to simply fit it all in a small info-box summary. If this article cannot stand alone, I would suggest a "merge" to the List of Veterans who died in 2008 article, which has just 14 listees...it would make sense to have a one-paragraph mini-bio on the last 25 or so (and with 9 alive and 14 died in 2008, that's just 23 total).Ryoung122 01:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable enough for me, you should just reported this article's recreation to ANI mate. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep User MuZemike's vote should be discounted. This is because they are under the impression that this article is a recreation of deleted material under a different name. This is simply not true. This arises from the original double deletion being completely unfair. And it has meant that this article can never receive a fair nomination. Perhaps people can consider this in future, before tagging all and sundry for removal. 212.183.136.192 (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[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 author consent to delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boulder Dam Brewing Company
- Boulder Dam Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable brewing company. My speedy deletion tag was removed for a specious reason. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is an assertion, so that might have been the reason the A7 tag was removed, but that said this is NN. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V and may also be a COI. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 07:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember that COI is not a valid reason for deletion.- Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But failure to fit in to WP:CORP is. --Kickstart70TC 03:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google results yields at least two independent sources that discuss the place which would address the issue of the current referencing. Apparently, this place is a restaurant too. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent sources available. The restaurant/brewery is used as a local museum for artifacts from the building of the Hoover Dam. It has been recognized by several magazines as a big attraction in the area.Gr0ff (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Which sources are you referring to? When I searched google, the only thing I found that meeting the references criteria was this, an article in Las Vegas Review-Journal. The other reviews on google were from a review website that anyone could submit to, and the two links on the article itself are from the brewery's website. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there is very little proper sourcing. I've had a look on Google and I can't find anything decent. Reyk YO! 19:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there's some print sources we're missing. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google search and found nothing in the way of reliable sources. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's all about WP:CORP, and frankly editors refusing to heed that guideline, which was built on consensus. --Kickstart70TC 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP. The 458-odd hits on both Google and Yahoo are 99.9% not qualified as secondary sources. Geoff (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as author and sole contributor. If user-created content does not count as a secondary source, then agreed that article fails WP:CORP. I have no interest in being disruptive to argue this point. Gr0ff (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CollecToons
- CollecToons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No assertion of notability. No hint of what the heck an "electronic sticker book" is. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Speedy delete Appears to be a cut and paste interview (see bottom of article). Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete beta testing for this online game only ended a month ago. Insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. Icewedge (talk) 04:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Article creator; firstly, you have no sources of this being incorrect. The list of beta testers are on CollecToons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 321Taco321 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) — 321Taco321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The rationale for deletion has nothing to do with whether or not the information in the article is correct. It has to do with the subject's notability, that is, do we even want an article on this topic? Does the subject meet the minimum notability criteria for games? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do we even want an article on this topic?" You should ask the hundreds of users that play before you ask that question. This article is being worked on, proposing it for deletion because you don't find it suitable makes you look like a jerk. User Talk:321Taco321
- Firstly, please remain civil. Secondly, having a large user/fanbase doesn't make a subject/site notable in the least. We have guidelines that determine what is or is not notable. Lastly, this article appears to fail the aforementioned guideline, making it a subject for deletion. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ChildofMidnight. Seems to also be a fan site of sorts, based off the beta 1.0 version of Cartoon Orbit. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all those above. abf /talk to me/ 13:42, 19 November 2008 (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 redirect to Qormeh sabzi. Alternative spelling Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gorma Sabze
- Gorma Sabze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Too empty article about Persian cuisine, with just a recipe coming soon in the article, which looks more like a recipe. I've google it and didn't found any relevant links, so I am AfDing to see if it's suitable. macy 02:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When I first saw the article, I deleted the "recipe coming soon" mention with a summary stating that Wikipedia is not a recipe book. The article asserts no notability for this dish as a staple of Persian cuisine. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Redirect, as per Mangoe's comment. Horselover Frost (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Qormeh sabzi. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as alternative spelling of existing article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (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. Consensus appears to be that this book is not yet notable. StarM 03:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One Team, One Dream
- One Team, One Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet notability criteria for books lightspeedchick (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete small publisher, no reviews--not notable. JJL (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, In the 10,000 libraries indexed by WorldCat, none of them have this book ([34]) and its sales rank is nearly 400,000 ([35]) at Barnes and Noble, not that great for a recent release. Icewedge (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete This book, yes, is by a small publisher, however this book is a "big deal" in Virginia. The books are being ordered by the dozens by bookstores, specialty stores, sporting events in the area.
Over 12 media sources can be cited to show that, although the book isn't a "bestseller" (although it was #17 in baseball books in 2008), it is very notable in a small area.
Also, this book is currently under consideration for film by one major and one minor producer.
This book is every bit as "notable" as The Pacific Between and that was created by the author and allowed to stay. Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what I need to do to save this, I will do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanning19 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Search in the search box for wp: notability and wp: references. You need to cite newspaper and magazine (or other media) coverage of this book. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, please see article Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot. My second suggestion would be to discuss what the reviews and media coverage said about the author and the book in the article. If it's a notable subject that needs to be demonstrated by encyclopedic writing about the subject as it's been discussed by established media. Why did they write about? Why is it important? But you have to demonstrate its importance without saying "this important book" or hyping it. But I think saying something along the lines of "The Roanoke Times discussed X,Y,Z regarding the book" might be okay. I'll take another look tomorrow. As it reads now the article is a bit promotional and, as I understand it, plot summaries are discouraged. I hope that makes some sense. Like I said I'll ahve another look later and see if I can't help out a bit.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So, it won't be deleted until we can talk further? Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. The process will take a few days (at least). And if the article is improved and rewritten according to Wikipedia guidelines, you can also ask commenters to reassess. But I recommend making the article as strong as possible as soon as possible. Even if it is deleted, you can resubmit it later with improvements, but we'll see what we can do this go around. I've also asked a more experienced editor to take a look and offer some insights. Good night. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll do everything I can. I appreciate all of your help. Cbmanning19 (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as some notability has been established by coverage through a few independent secondary sources. I do, however, recommend some good amount of copyediting as it seems like there is an obvious conflict of interest. I will give the appropriate friendly warning as a result. MuZemike (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was told I could ask questions here. What could I do to make my entry nuetral? It seems as nuetral as humanly possible to me right now. Not being a wiseass, just asking for help. Cbmanning19 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong Delete Not in any US WorldCat library , according to WorldCat. Sometimes a new book from an established author can be notable none the less, but that the LC hasnt yet bothered to catalog it does indicate extremely strongly against any possible notability. The only loophole is that sometimes they do not pay serious attention to material on really fringe subjects, but for them not to catalog a work of ordinary fiction is, in my opinion, definitive proof of non-notability. The nature of the publisher has attracted some controversy--It is a print on demand publisher, and I regard its products as self-published author-subsidized publications unless proven otherwise. The references are human interest stories on a local author, every one of them--this is essentially public relations. Local news outlets typically give a courtesy interview or review regardless of importance of the work. What is necessary is actual reviews from major Reliable review sources, if there ever are any. If this book is notable at this time, every published book is. I consider it a valid speedy as entirely promotional. The nature of the writing in the article is further proof--we couldnt use this sort of description even if the book were important. But there's no point in asking the ed. to rewrite in the absence of evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a few comments in response. 1) this is a work of non-fiction. 2) it's a work of non-fiction about a sports team, so the "local" papers covering that region would be well positioned to comment on the book and it's perhaps not surprising that it's of more regional than national interest (I think this is rather true of any regional subject matter) 3) I think your response is perhaps overly strong given the article creator's willingness to address concerns and solicit input. The article's promotional writing style can certainly be corrected. That being said, there is a real question about notability. I haven't read the reviews, but I think that's a good place to start. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- when I see 'based on " and a list of characters, it seems either fiction or disguised fiction. I admit to not having read the book, but I did read the article. If its a personal reminiscence, just as likely to be non-notable. And if its proponent here says "a big deal in virginia" its not a big deal--notability for a book has to be wider than just local. And "being ordered in dozens" in not best seller status. Being ordered in thousands, that would be. And, CoM, there are no truly third party reviews to read. DGG (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references and external links do not give rise to any conclusion of notability. No claim of notability is made, and DGG's search for the book in libraries is also persuasive. Bongomatic 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just to correct the statement from DGG, this book in in the worldcat database, its listed here, but only listed in a single library. I could only locate a single source for this book, a very brief mention "SOSALEM NEWS." Roanoke Times & World News. 14 Nov 2008. SA3., saying that the author would be appearing at a Barnes & Noble, it did say BTW, that the book was a "fact based account of the 1997 William Byrd High School baseball Virginia State Champions." But all of that does not meet the requirements of WP:BK. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CoM, you've been very helpful and I appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmanning19 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Polarbröd
- Polarbröd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable bread company. "Sweeden's 3rd largest bread company" doesn't make it notable. Tavix (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Also has some WP:CITE issues, if it is indeed the third largest this would need to be cited. Also the list of employees seems to have some NOR issues. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - enough sources here to meet WP:ORG and from which it can be expanded. Further material, and sources, here. TerriersFan (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs expansion, improvement and the addition of references.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As it now appears refs can be found. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, issues can be solved by editing instead of deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Marcusmax's turnaround. — neuro(talk) 12:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the article needs a lot of cleanup, it is definitely notable. I'll see if I can put something together soon. Plrk (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just needs to be expanded, the sources indicate it's notable. ☺ Spiby ☻ 14:14, 19 November 2008 (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. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horace Mann Middle School
- Horace Mann Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article seems to have some major issues which include, WP:NOR, WP:N and just being poorly written. Marcusmax(speak) 02:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, unnotable article of original research. Tavix (talk)
- Merge/redirect to Charleston, West Virginia#Middle schools per normal practice (district is redlinked). TerriersFan (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per TerriersFan. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Charleston, West Virginia#Middle schools per TerriersFan.--Sting Buzz Me... 03:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article seems to be large copy-paste from a press release or school website. School isn't particularly notable. It seems unlikely to be something someone would be searching for, so I'd probably just clear up the namespace rather than redirect to the Charleston article which is just a listing anyhow. Brian Powell (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are mulitple Horace Mann Middle Schools across the country (two in Wisconsin alone) and this one doesn't have more notability than the others. This would better serve as a dab to the school districts that have an HMMS than putting the Charleston building front and center. Nate • (chatter) 06:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with dab to the respective districts. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with dab per CRGreathouse. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The dab would be like this:
- Horace Mann Middle School, Charleston, West Virginia, in Kanawha County School District
- Horace Mann Middle School, Denver, Colorado, in Denver Public Schools
- Horace Mann Middle School, El Portal, Florida, in Miami-Dade County Public Schools
- Horace Mann Middle School, Neenah, Wisconsin, in Neenah School District
- Horace Mann Middle School, San Francisco, California, in San Francisco Unified School District
- Horace Mann Middle School, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, in Sheboygan Area School District
- Horace Mann Middle School, Wausau, Wisconsin, in Wausau School District
Cunard (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment change "in" to "part of", along with a "see also Horace Mann School" and it's perfect. Nate • (chatter) 11:01, 20 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promis Electro-Optics
- Promis Electro-Optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No convincing assertion of notability. A Google search reveals that this company exists, but that's all. There are no reliable, independent sources to demonstrate why this company should have an article in Wikipedia. There's lots of companies in the world. Most are not notable, including this one. Reyk YO! 01:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:CORP. Could not find any reliable sources establishing notability of the company. LeaveSleaves talk 02:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clean Hydration
- Clean Hydration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sounds a little promotional and notability seems to be lacking as well. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minimal (i.e. 3 or 4) gHits and 0 gNews hits. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i would nearly have added A7. There seems to be really no notabillity at all. abf /talk to me/ 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. — neuro(talk) 19:23, 19 November 2008 (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. per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 04:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Hand Feeling
- Second Hand Feeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no source given for the term 'second hand feeling'. The references given are US-centric. The article has no significance beyong the existing doctrine on social problems caused by alcoholism. Richard Cavell (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NEO by no refs. Few (if any) related gHits.
- Delete. No notable search results found. Most likely a neologism. LeaveSleaves talk 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is not appropriate for Wikipedia in its present state. If this changes let me know. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable neologism, per all above. abf /talk to me/ 13:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As protologism. — neuro(talk) 19:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article begins by saying that it is "another term" for "alcohol depression", and we don't even have an article for alcohol depression, whichever of several possibilities that might mean, to redirect this to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of notable people who wore the bowler hat
- List of notable people who wore the bowler hat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article seems to have been created in violation of WP:POINT in response to this Afd.turns out this may have been jumping the gun on a coincidence, redacted MickMacNee (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Article is also totally unreferenced and establishes zero notability MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is as well referenced as List_of_people_who_have_been_beheaded. And for the same reason. Also, it was NOT, repeat NOT created to make any sort of POINT. It's a de-merge from Bowler hat in trying to de-escalate an edit war. SBHarris 02:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is BS. It is a direct result from the ensuing AFD on bowties, clear and simple. All it is doing is proverbially adding water to a grease fire. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I created it, and I very well know why I created it. And you can read the Bowler hat edit summaries if you need evidence to back and prove the story. Now quit assuming bad faith.SBHarris 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why would I assume good faith on someone whom I believe is blatantly invoking WP:POINT? The fact that you intentionally spun this off from the bowtie AFD to spark more (useless IMO) back-and-forth discussion with no end result leaves me little choice but to do so. You very well knew that. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why would you assume good faith in somebody you believe is not acting in good faith," in other words? Well, where is your evidence that I'm acting to prove WP:POINT? You can say this was spun off the bowtie AFD till the cows come home, but that won't make it true. *I* spun it off. I know why I spun it off, and it is incredibly insulting to have you tell me that I didn't act for the reasons I know I acted for. I knew NOTHING about your frigging bowtie AFD when I did it. Nor do I care about bowties. The edit war that resulted in it being spun off is a matter of record. It stands to refute your argument. As long as you keep making it, I'll just keep pointing out that you're making a vicious judgement about somebody else's motives, based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. So keep it up. The more you do of this, the worse you look. If you want to go into the history to show me a liar or in any way acting in bad faith, here's your chance. I hope you try it, and waste gobs of time doing it. It will serve you right, and perhaps teach you something. SBHarris 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why would I assume good faith on someone whom I believe is blatantly invoking WP:POINT? The fact that you intentionally spun this off from the bowtie AFD to spark more (useless IMO) back-and-forth discussion with no end result leaves me little choice but to do so. You very well knew that. MuZemike (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I created it, and I very well know why I created it. And you can read the Bowler hat edit summaries if you need evidence to back and prove the story. Now quit assuming bad faith.SBHarris 17:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a bad idea. Pushing bad content off into a separate article just so that "people can edit war over it over there, away from us", is always a bad idea. Time and again, over the past few years, people have done exactly that, in an attempt to push a problem away to another article rather than deal with it. And time and again, the problem has ended up here at AFD, with a consensus (as is indeed developing here) to merge the content back in again. Read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. You've seen and been part of this cycle at least once, now. (I've seen it numerous times.) Please learn from this experience. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not "always" a bad idea. If one of the underlying reasons (stated or not) why people don't like a section is that it is overlong and is taking over an article, that may mean that it is merely time to spin it off to a subarticle with a summary. That works well all the time, and is in fact how Wikipedia grows. As a matter of fact, List of people who have been beheaded was spun off from the decapitation article (not by me), where it now sits, quietly, on a separate pike. All in just the way we've tried to do it here for bowler hat wearers. Do you want it merged back in to the main article? I'd do it, but that really WOULD violate WP:POINT. SBHarris 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, pushing bad content off into a separate article is always a bad idea. You didn't spin this content off because of the article size of bowler hat, which was barely 16KiB at its peak. Painting this as a size issue, as you are doing here, is a clear falsehood. You spun the content off because you were arguing about content that two other editors had clearly and explicitly challenged for not being reliably sourced, complete with massive immediate assumptions of bad faith on your part about the other editors involved in the dispute. You tried to push the edit war over unsourced and repeatedly challenged content elsewhere into a separate article, and you began the cycle that I mention above. I repeat: You would do well to learn from this that it is a bad idea, instead of trying to misportray a clear verifiability issue as somehow being a size issue. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not "always" a bad idea. If one of the underlying reasons (stated or not) why people don't like a section is that it is overlong and is taking over an article, that may mean that it is merely time to spin it off to a subarticle with a summary. That works well all the time, and is in fact how Wikipedia grows. As a matter of fact, List of people who have been beheaded was spun off from the decapitation article (not by me), where it now sits, quietly, on a separate pike. All in just the way we've tried to do it here for bowler hat wearers. Do you want it merged back in to the main article? I'd do it, but that really WOULD violate WP:POINT. SBHarris 17:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is BS. It is a direct result from the ensuing AFD on bowties, clear and simple. All it is doing is proverbially adding water to a grease fire. MuZemike (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'keep It actually is a definable characteristic for bother performers and sometimes other figures, at least in periods when they werent universal. DGG (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Wow, thank you for applying your keep vote for BOWLER HAT and not LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WORE THE BOWLER HAT. Different articles, so please explain how this article is notable and not the hat itself. Tavix (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's better to assume good faith. DGG's comments do appear to apply to the subjects of this article and not to the hat itself. (Although see my own !vote below.) AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Wow, thank you for applying your keep vote for BOWLER HAT and not LIST OF PEOPLE WHO WORE THE BOWLER HAT. Different articles, so please explain how this article is notable and not the hat itself. Tavix (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete with prejudice towards recreation, and warn the author not to disrupt Wikipedia again to make a point upon threat of a block. Why has a request for comment not been started regarding articles like these instead of going back and forth with this stupid bickering bullshit? (pardon my strong tone and French) MuZemike (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral This article might well have a claim of notability, but there is no prose explaining why an individual wearing a bowler hat is notable, no sources establishing why bowler-wearing is a notable characteristic and no sources establishing that any of the individuals wore a bowler. If this can be improved to the quality and scope of List of bow tie wearers, which meets all of these criteria, I will be more than happy to reconsider my vote. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move
MergeThere seems to be a history behind this article I had not realised when I came here following the link from the contentious bow tie debate. I think the title is a bit poor, and suggest "list of bowler hat wearers", but apart from that I apologise for bad faith prejudice affecting my judgement. It should be given time to improve, and certainly helps the main article by being separate (and notable also in itself). —Kan8eDie (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails (at the moment) to establish notability. I am wary of making WP:RUBBISH arguments, but the references are not there, and the quality is not such as to indicate that improvements are forthcoming (i.e. there is no point giving the author the benefit of doubt for a couple of weeks to clean it up). I am however open to this article existing if it aims in a similar direction to good articles like List of bow tie wearers, but, on a case-by-case basis, the current article does not do enough to establish itself an an equivalently good footing. Hence, though the title could potentially be made into an encyclopaedic article, but at the moment is there to prove a point, so until this changes, it should go. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no encyclopedic purpose for this list. Purely opinion/speculation. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations to the creator for producing such a substantial article in 2 days - who can predict where it will be in 2 weeks? There was the chap in Clockwork Orange too [already there]. President Hastings Banda invariably wore a bowler. (What or who has been disrupted?) Occuli (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it has in fact merely been demerged from the Bowler hat article. Occuli (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the highly disruptive List of monocle wearers. Occuli (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it has in fact merely been demerged from the Bowler hat article. Occuli (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete* Article is unencyclopedic doesnt show any interst towards the public or valuble sourcesJbecker90 (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no point in having this list, unreferenced, and no notablility LegoKontribsTalkM 01:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Yes, I created the original version of this article, which was demerged from the Bowler hat article, where it occupied 60% of the space. No, I had no idea there even was a bow tie controversy until reading here, so WP:POINT is NOT an issue. This article's content was the subject of a minor delete/edit war on Bowler hat, and thinking that I could de-escalate that, I off-loaded it as a {{main}}type list article. We do have many dedicated list articles on WP--- see WP:LISTS. In any case, this accounts for the large amount of info appearing suddenly (and yes, I noticed the Clockwork Orange guys are missing, too).
Should this thing be kept? Well, the Bowler hat makes something more of a fashion statement than a bowtie, and always did. Why this is, I do not know. This article was created piecemeal by very many contributors, and if it's gone, people will just start adding these things one at a time again to the Bowler hat article. That's rather unlikely that this would happen to the bow tie article, since there are so many other famous wearers. It's a bad idea to delete an article which will be piecemeal re-created, by people who had no idea of its initial existence! But what do you think of, when you think of Oddjob or Laurel and Hardy or Bat Masterson? Yes, the thing needs to be sectioned into real and fictional characters, and they need some kind of order. But we can't do that, if you delete it.
I'm a little shocked that people would say "might be encyclopedic in the future, but meanwhile since it isn't, delete it." That's not the way Wikipedia grows! A last issue is that many list articles have references embedded in the links they reference. For example: List of people who've been beheaded. [36]. Similarly, very many links in this list article are similar referenced, by a direct photo or drawing of somebody wearning a bowler, in the linked Wiki itself. SBHarris 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whatever happens here, it should be the same thing as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: why? The bow tie list wasn't just a list, it was an essay. And it was completely verified, and at least attempted to explain why it was important. This is nothing, just listcruft. Which reminds me: Delete. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are significant differences between the two articles. For example, List of bow tie wearers has (at this moment) 127 reference footnotes, and this article has none. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's effectively a form of the what about X argument. There's no established policy of ruling in matching ways on similar articles not jointly nominated, and the two articles are very different in their apparent criteria of inclusion. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Bowler hat. I think the list may be notable, in spite of the absence of sources, and (unlike the List of bow tie wearers situation) the list is too short to warrant an article split. Also, regardless of whether it's a stand-alone article or an embedded list in the Bowler hat article, arrange the list elements in some sort of nonrandom predictable manner and support the list entries with citations to reliable sources. As long as this list remains random and unsourced, expect that it will continue to be attacked.--Orlady (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an indiscriminate list. It's not that it's not referenced or notable, it's that it's unencyclopedic. Xihr 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to Bowler hat, or source, add lead, and then keep. I do believe this to be a notable phenomenon, but of the first five entries, only two of the articles about the person or character even mentioned a "derby" or "bowler hat", making the list difficult for the reader to verify. I suspect most if not all of these entries can be sourced, so please do it to demonstrate notability. Because if this is not sourced, there will be an endless cycle of splitting, deleting, merging, and splitting again. Break the cycle with reliable sources! DHowell (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteas not encyclopaedic, simply an indiscriminate list. Totally fails notability criteria. Verbal chat 09:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1) Articles that are subarticles don't need to establish independent notability, but rather a need to be split off. 2) Since there's bunches of original research in this entry, I believe it should be treated like the bowtie list. Cut everything until you're left with people who were known for bowler hat wearing in particular (not people occasionally seen with one). Depending on the resulting size, that list could be merged back. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to bowler hat - Although there is the potential for an article here, this isn't it. There are no sources, the lead gives no clear criterion for inclusion, and there's a lot of OR about Brooklyn accents and suchlike. It also used the word 'notable' in its title and 'cultural references' in the lead. This might be salvageable, but I'm not convinced. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another indiscriminate list. Themfromspace (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hats Off Egad, characters from TV shows and cartoons (who aren't even real people, let alone notable ones) mixed with actors who wore hats as part of a film role, mixed with real people who wore the once-fashionable headgear. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources whatsoever to indicate notability of the wearing of bowler hats. I'll be happy to reconsider if references are added.--otherlleft (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some work has been done
I have made an initial collection into three categories. Many of them are interesting, and it's clear that if you read them (something I'll bet few commentators above have done) that they contain self-references in their Wiki-links. Also that the bowler hat is a distinguishing part of the character or work of art. Only the Western cowboy hat comes near it, in that regard. In any case, for the time it's taken some of the people above to comment, they could have been improving the article a lot. SBHarris 20:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The absence of sources is still a serious issue with the article. Also, do consider that alphabetical order is often effective for organizing lists of names. --Orlady (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least for now. Was a split off of the main article, and was nominated under the mistaken idea that it was a knee jerk article creation to another AFD. It is extensive, wikilinked, reasonable to think this is a notable characteristic, and should be given more time to develop. It passes wp:v in that it can be verified even if it isn't yet, and we aren't on a wp:deadline, particularly with new articles. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:N trumps WP:V. Even if the article is verifiable, it still isn't a notable subject for a list. Themfromspace (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument about "notability" comes down to a tricky way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not that there aren't a huge number of cultural references and symbology related to the thing: example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7641493.stm. It just means you're not interested in the subject. SBHarris 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't put words in my mouth. Read over WP:N. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The topic of this article is "List of notable people who wore the bowler hat". Find me some significant coverage of that topic that "address the subject directly in detail". Objective evidence on why a list of notable people who wore the bowler hat belongs in an encyclopedia. Verifiablity only proves the details of an article (X, Y, and Z wore bowler hats for example) but those sources dont prove the notability of the article unless they address the wider subject (the group of people themselves) as the subject of the articles. Themfromspace (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then you'd have to reintigrate the list back into the article to do that. Lists are like redlinks in Wikipedia: they are groups of facts often waiting for connection. If you delete them first, that never happens. Do what you want. I'll leave you with this reference: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Bowler-Hat-History-Iconography/dp/0807820733, from a guy who has made all these connections and more.
SBHarris 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]Robinson (English/University of San Diego; Comic Moments, 1992, etc.--not reviewed) traces the cultural significance of the bowler hat from 1850 to the present--in a study as lighthearted and charming as its subject. Having asked, "Why did Samuel Beckett specify that the four major characters of Waiting for Godot wear bowler hats?," in a 1986 TriQuarterly article, Robinson was moved to expand his inquiry to book length, studying modern life through the evolving meanings of this item of fashion that combines--symbolically and literally- -both lightness and weight. Following the history of the bowler "as though a wind were blowing it just beyond [my] reach," Robinson tells of the hat's debut, in 1850 London, where its combination of style and function satisfied Victorian England's obsession with the practical and the correct. The bowler soon passed from informal use among the aristocracy into a badge of respectability by the upwardly mobile middle class, eventually inspiring Chaplin to use it in his parody of the earnest "little man." As 20th-century life brought new strains of malaise, the bowler became a symbol of mass-produced anonymity in Magritte's paintings; of grim soullessness in the works of Anton Raderscheidt and Georg Grosz; and, finally, in Germany, of Jewish greed and evil. By 1948, when Beckett began writing Godot, the bowler had come to stand for an immutable social identity. It has since settled into the relative obscurity of costume wear, resurfacing only occasionally--e.g., as Oddjob's weapon in Goldfinger and an erotic toy in Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. Yet the bowler continues to "[express] its history precisely as it floats past it," Robinson concludes, until it becomes a pure design object that can adapt to anything--and "the dream of the modern will be realized, in at least one small object, at the end of the modern age." A tip of the hat to this playful yet thought-provoking work. (Fifty-two illustrations)
- Well, then you'd have to reintigrate the list back into the article to do that. Lists are like redlinks in Wikipedia: they are groups of facts often waiting for connection. If you delete them first, that never happens. Do what you want. I'll leave you with this reference: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Bowler-Hat-History-Iconography/dp/0807820733, from a guy who has made all these connections and more.
- Don't put words in my mouth. Read over WP:N. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The topic of this article is "List of notable people who wore the bowler hat". Find me some significant coverage of that topic that "address the subject directly in detail". Objective evidence on why a list of notable people who wore the bowler hat belongs in an encyclopedia. Verifiablity only proves the details of an article (X, Y, and Z wore bowler hats for example) but those sources dont prove the notability of the article unless they address the wider subject (the group of people themselves) as the subject of the articles. Themfromspace (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument about "notability" comes down to a tricky way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's not that there aren't a huge number of cultural references and symbology related to the thing: example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7641493.stm. It just means you're not interested in the subject. SBHarris 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this indiscriminate trivia infested list which has zero encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, like so many other trivia lists. I wish people would have the courage to remove out-of-control trivia lists once in a while. There's no rule requiring them to be spun off. WillOakland (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, that is exactly what happend here in the bowler hat article. Two editors challenged and removed the list, on the basis (given in their edit summaries) that it was unreliably sourced. Sbharris reverted the trimming, and decided to spin the content off into a new article, instead of citing sources in the main article to show that the content that xe was re-inserting was verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indiscriminate, unencyclopedic, we've done this dance before. –– Lid(Talk) 10:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I see this as a spin-off per summary style. Notable wearers are indeed part of a thourough study of an iconic item of clothing, as shown by the book quoted above by Sbharris, but the complete list doesn't fit in the parent article due to its length. I agree that it needs cleanup, referencing, trimming, and all that, and also agree with MGM that after the trimming it is even possible that a merge back will be best. --Itub (talk) 12:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The trimming could have occurred in the main article, where this content actually came from in the first place (without proper GFDL-compliant edit summaries by the article's creator), so no edit history is lost by deletion. In fact, it was occurring. Editors were challenging the content and removing it, and it was being edit warred back in, on the basis that the verifiability policy didn't say what people think it does, rather than on the significantly more sound basis that there were sources supporting the content. Faced with multiple editors asking for reliable sources, the editor who was restoring the unsourced content decided to use the alternative approach, which never works, of trying to push the edit war out to a separate article. And hence we are, with yet another article, going around the create-AFD-delete/merge cycle described in User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, as a result of editors who think that the solutions to verifiability and neutrality disputes over unsourced list-of-characters/people-who-are/do-X content are to create separate articles with their preferred content in, rather than to actually make the existing article verifiable, neutral, and free from original research. This is a classic fork-out-of-a-content-dispute situation. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Uncle G. This shouldn't haven't been spun off into a separate article. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:AFD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for deletion. It took me less than a minute find sources and the only remaining issues are to improve the list and the lede to show why bowler hats are tied to these people/characters. Bowler hat, by the way, is also rather a mess so I see little benefit to counteracting what was sensibly spun off. Clean-it up and start demonstrating how the subject can be dealt with encyclopedicly. -- Banjeboi 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The list fails immediately as a collection of indiscriminate information. While it may be notable in an article about Winston Churchill that he wore a bowler hat, since that is an attribute of the man's dress, a list of people, notable or otherwise, who wore the hat is not and can not be notable. What is interesting is by no means always notable. A very short list of examples of wearers is acceptable in the Bowler hat article, but, even there, an exhaustive list is a broad irrelevance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a list of indiscriminate information, any more than a list of players on a sports team, a list of teams in a league, or a list of notable people who've lost their heads to beheading, is "indiscriminate." What discriminates these people is their choice of the bowler hat to make a statement. This does not attempt to be an inclusive list of people who wore one for any reason; it's a list of people who wore one because of what they wanted the bowler to say, and were themselves notable without it, but more recognizable with it and because of it. Like Churchill. Take a look at today's Google logo. It's Magritte's 110th birthday today. Magritte often chose the Bowler to say something, and because of that, Google chose it to say something about Magritte. But many other people besides Magritte made this choice, or else Magritte's paintings would have no meaning from the symbol. Ceci n'est pas une Bowler. SBHarris 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, it is. Put the hat-ness in Magritte and Churchill. This article is an irrelevance Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By that argument, here is a List of ships. Yep, they're all ships, all right. Why don't you go and put a delete template on it? SBHarris 22:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I refer you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I point you to the entire article on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Make a clear argument which avoids some variation of this, please? Above, you referenced WP:IINFO, but the present list violates none of the bad examples, there, so that's irrelevent.
The subarticleWP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS appears to me to be nothing more than a combination of IDONTLIKEIT combined with the dubious assertion that Wikipedia actually has no obligation whatsoever to be consistant. But unfortunately, pillars, policies and guidelines are no help whatsoever without examples, so a certain amount of consistancy is needed. Also, since WP:lists and categories on Wikipedia duplicate and compliment each other, per policy, your argument that something should not be a list basically fails unless you can make an argument that it shouldn't even be a category. SBHarris 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Point all you wish. It is, in my opinion, a list that is an indiscriminate collection of information. I have never argued for "list or category but not both" nor will I. I am arguing for the list per se being not notable (and thus indiscriminate). You will not convince my by rhetoric. You might if the list becomes what I view as notable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if you look at WP:IINFO the definition of an indiscriminate list of information given, is a list of things which each aren't in-and-of themselves notable. It is NOT what you suggest, which is a list of notable things that somebody like you thinks shouldn't be notable "as a list." As you see, nearly all the items in the list of bowler hat wearers already have their own wikis on wikipedia. They are notable. If each list itself on WP had to be notable "as a list," then it would need independent RS, V confirmation as such. But that would wipe out a lot of WP categories, which (in case you haven't noticed) are technically OR, by virtue of their collection and tagging as belonging together, here, for the first time, on WP. No encyclopedia can avoid some of that. We've collected a unque bunch of articles that start with the letter "A," too-- one you won't find anywhere else. Where's your reference for this collection, since it only exists on Wikipedia? See the problem? SBHarris 23:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sorry, but" is a phrase which I do not find endearing. It has the appearance of politeness but is really a sneer. I suggest the person closing this AfD is in a better position than either of us to judge the arguments brought to bear and thus the consensus formed. I have no intention of going further into this with you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May I point you to the entire article on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Make a clear argument which avoids some variation of this, please? Above, you referenced WP:IINFO, but the present list violates none of the bad examples, there, so that's irrelevent.
The endless list vs. category AfD debate
A continuous problem at AfD is the category-vs-list conflict. One purpose of this guideline is to end that conflict. The lead included a good explanation of the conflict, but it was recently removed. I've restored the version of the lead that includes Dcoetzee's refinements above. The Transhumanist 03:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I recommend anybody who doesn't want to repeat past wikiwars familiarize themselves with WP:CLN and WP:LISTS. For a shocker, also look at List of lists and some of the extensive materials therein. SBHarris 03:52, 22 November 2008 (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. Deletion requested by creator. Elonka 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ring Meanings
- Ring Meanings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced essay, POV original research. Delete. SIS 00:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ring (jewellery), which contains substantially similar content. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's creator blanked the page, which suggests that he concurs in the delete. It appears that the article was indeed a spinoff from Ring (jewellery); I've never seen the word jewelry spelled that way, but Jewellery is indeed an accepted and commonly used spelling. You learn something new every day. Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (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. kurykh 00:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Joy Basu
- Joy Basu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Playwright whose notability is not established. The 3 "references" provided in the 2liner article are all trivial, passing mentions to the subject. Ragib (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : per WP:N, WP:V. --Ragib (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't the references demonstrate that he is the creator of multiple notable works? Juzhong (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Reference #1 actually refers to the subject in passing, Robibar bikalbela, directed by an independent filmmaker from the US, Amit Dutt, and scripted by Calcutta playwright and critic, Joy Basu, is not just about looking back". Reference #2,just mentions that the subject is the brother-in-law of the produces and is the writer". And finally, Reference #3 is a free web hosted site for the subject's company, so it doesn't count at all. --Ragib (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright delete, helping make one possibly notable work isn't enough, and we've had a chance to look for other evidence. Juzhong (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that notability hasn't been established with the given references (WP:V and WP:BIO). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! fails basically any notabillity and sources. abf /talk to me/ 13:57, 19 November 2008 (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. per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 04:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Austin Graves
- Austin Graves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to have been created by the subject of the article, thereby creating a conflict of interest. The subject of the article may well be notable, but the article ought to be written by someone else. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - IMDB has her credited a few times as "uncredited" or "Bikini model" and such[37]. Apart from the COI problem, she appears to be a non-notable extra.
SIS00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Comment There seems to be 2 AFDs open for this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Cavell and myself had the same idea at the same time, I think. My entry (the 2nd nomination) should be gone now. If not, please remove it.
SIS00:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put a G7 tag on it and untranscluded it from the log. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Cavell and myself had the same idea at the same time, I think. My entry (the 2nd nomination) should be gone now. If not, please remove it.
- Delete. COI, WP:N, doesn't seem to be in anything much notable. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no indication how extensive the appearance in sports illustrated was and the film parts are all non-speaking extra parts. Notability is not established. I would like to point out that using COI to require someone else to write the article is needlessly bureaucratic. It gives everyone extra work when we could just as easily keep an eye on the article and make sure it remains neutral (which is the issue with most COI articles) - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree to all above. abf /talk to me/ 14:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2008 (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. /Nom Withdrawn. StarM 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whihala Beach County Park
- Whihala Beach County Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article has notability issues, and slightly promo. I vote delete. Dengero (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There has to be a logical limit beneath which a location does not have an article, and this is below it. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete County parks can be notable, but they have to demonstrate it: no reason to believe that this one is notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It appears to pass inclusion standards per references added by Eastmain. --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if there can be enough information to get passed an address. Tavix (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I added some more and removed promotional material. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Still not certain if the additional information or sources establish notability. They probably do but just barely and the nominator has withdrawn. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Skins (TV series). SoWhy 17:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roundview College
- Roundview College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article about a fictional college, that does not play a major part in its related TV series and has no real content. PretzelsTalk! 20:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and expand. You'd never guess it from the article, but its the major setting of a very notable series. The thing do do with material like this is to look for sources, not deletion. I note that the main article could use a summary section about settings also. DGG (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Such content as there is, can easily be absorbed into Skins (TV series) article. SpinningSpark 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you not supporting a merge or a redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of principle, I believe that it is wrong to !vote for merge if you are not personally prepared to carry out the merger. It puts the closing admin in a very difficult position, who may not be inclined, or have the necessary knowledge, to carry out the merge him/herself but has got no indication that anyone is actually going to do it. In this particular case, the article consists of only three sentences, of which the content of one is already in Skins so a merge is trivial whether or not the article gets deleted. I will support a merge once someone else has indicated a willingness to do the work. SpinningSpark 13:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why are you not supporting a merge or a redirect? - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent notability whatsoever. Eusebeus (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Skins (TV series). For an American analogy, Pacific Coast Academy is a redirect to Zoey 101, and the school itself has no apparent notability outside the British television show. Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable fancruft. Tavix (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No real world notability. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Skins (TV series). I still don't understand how a real person can attend a fictional college, but since it is the major setting of the show, it makes for a plausible search term. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 19 November 2008 (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. StarM 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dithered Twits
- Dithered Twits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable comic strip, only appeared in college papers. No sources. Orphaned since August '06 (!), Notability tag since March '08. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if they can demonstrate 40 college newspapers--sources are needed. Many notable art forms flourish at that level. DGG (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If it can be shown that this was indeed syndicated by Tribune Media Services, that would be notable enough for me. Stan Waling is an illustrator, and "Dithered Twits" was a syndicated strip [38] and it apparently was in the college paper for Cal State at Chico [39]. I don't see anything in a TMS related site that confirms that Tribune syndicated it, however. Mandsford (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems notable. But has expired references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (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. StarM 15:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BAMBARA (band)
- BAMBARA (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band fails WP:MUSIC. The only sources I could find are already linked in the External links section, the most substantial of which is a student newspaper. My earlier prod was denied. Millbrooky (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage found for "BAMBARA". A few things found for "23jinx" but not what could be classed as significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found multiple directory-like listings for "23 Jinx" in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Orlando Sentinel, but that is not sufficient for WP:N notability. Nor is the one article in a student newspaper. Delete unless other sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC completely.
SIS00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. I tried looking up this band and I couldn't find anything. I agree with Strikeout that the way the article is now, this page fails WP:MUSIC. Anyone have luck finding anything on this band? ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everything above. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unable to find significant coverage, if reliable sources are found, notify me and I will reconsider my !vote. — neuro(talk) 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC and therefore WP:N. abf /talk to me/ 14:05, 19 November 2008 (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. Mangojuicetalk 16:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoopy the Bear
- Hoopy the Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Based on the following web searches:
the article subject appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and so doesn't comply with the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have never actually participated in an AfD, so I hope I am doing this right. You are right. Hoopy the Bear contains no real notability and lacks any sort of coverage. Hoopy was used in one issue of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic book series (issue #55) and was never mentioned again in said series or any other area of the franchise. Hoopy is essentially an extra and as such lacks the notability required for his own article.kingdom2 (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I would also normally support a merge, Hoopy the Bear has no suitable article to be merged into. The best option would be List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters, but that article is for recurring characters in the franchise, and in order to be included, a character has to meet these rules, which is a compilation of the existing consensus at the time it was written. If the decision were to be merge, I do not know where Hoopy would go. Also, the fact that it is "doubly fictional" ascribes it no real world notability. kingdom2 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yep, only in one issue, no refs and therefore no real world notability. Consider combining with Buffyverse wikia for all the buffyverse fans.Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Shouldn't be removed from Wikipedia all together; is noteable for (A) being a focus of a Buffy comic and (B) being doubly fictional, possibly. The timeline has Hoopy appearing from before fictional Dawn was actually 'real'. See discussion page on Hoopy article, as long as article lasts. Lots42 (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Very minor character with no real-world notability. More of the article is given over to discussing the issue of Buffyverse canonicity than to the character itself. Frickative 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree that deletion would be a shame. It's not notable enough for its own article, but should be merged with the main. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2008 (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.