Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 31
< October 30 | November 1 > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:G4. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 00:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dashboard Prophets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Oh, I thought my mind was slipping...I thought we deleted this one already in an AfD three days ago. Then I double-checked: we did delete this in an AfD three days ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dashboard_prophets. It is the same thing, with an upper case "P" this time! This particular article has already been speedy deleted twice before the last AfD. Maybe it is time to get out the salt shaker on this?Ecoleetage (talk) 23:43, 31 October 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 and Redirect to 5AA.In my judgment, notability has been neither established nor verified by reliable, non-trivial sources. While I eschew the idea of a subject dictating the terms or presence of an article, there is sufficient precident for such. Wisdom suggests that we are better off without this article at least until notability can be verified. JodyB talk 22:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jon Blake (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am nominating this stub on the grounds that he isn't notable enough for us to insist on inclusion in this encyclopedia. He's a radio broadcaster for a commercial talkback radio station in Adelaide (called 5AA, I believe). I can find no other claim to fame. No real assertion of notability.
As a contributing factor (and this is NOT the grounds for deletion), someone claiming to be the subject has repeatedly blanked the article objecting to its inclusion. The article at that point was POV and badly sourced and has now been stubbed and protected by admins under WP:BLP. The subject's request is NOT a reason to delete. However, the low-notability of this article, and the fact it has been in a poor state since creation rather means that it is unlikely to be well-maintained going forward, which is rather tough on the subject who will have to monitor it personally for any crap added. Not a reason to delete according to policy, but with a marginal at best article, something you may wish to consider. Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with courtesy per subject request. Borderline notability, subpar sourcing. The encyclopedia gains little by forcing such things upon living subjects who don't want them. See precedents at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie. DurovaCharge! 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the page has only two incoming links from other articles. DurovaCharge! 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that not all precedents support deletion, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant). Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Also here is two more precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (2nd nomination). -MBK004 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if we sow more precedents such as those, eventually we'll reap another Daniel Brandt. It's an ill harvest that isn't worth the trouble. DurovaCharge! 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think we should have an article on Daniel Brandt. -Nard 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's discuss that separately; you might be surprised. :) DurovaCharge! 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think we should have an article on Daniel Brandt. -Nard 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And if we sow more precedents such as those, eventually we'll reap another Daniel Brandt. It's an ill harvest that isn't worth the trouble. DurovaCharge! 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also here is two more precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (2nd nomination). -MBK004 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that not all precedents support deletion, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant). Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- FWIW, the page has only two incoming links from other articles. DurovaCharge! 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree. This individual is a notable individual. He is on the largest talk radio station in the fifth largest city in Australia... clearly a public figure. He also won an Australian Comercial Radio Award. Being an award winning personality on a major radio station in a major city is more than enough notability to keep. Despite his personal desires, the laws underwhihc Wikipedia is governed grants us Freedom of the Press. If he didn't want publicity, he shouldn't have taken a job that would make him a public figure.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Press? The press doesn't keep undermaintained, undersourced articles and allow any anonymous person to write them, and then block the subject for "vandalism" when they object. Pleeeeese - just because the law allows us to behave horribly does not mean we need to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Balloonman. We do not delete biographical articles simply because the subjects don't like it; this is an an encyclopedia, not some two-bit vanity publishing version of Who's Who. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am agreeing with Balloonman here as well. This individual is notable and a public figure. The article is not libelous. This article should not be deleted. Captain panda 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per borderline notability and the concerns mentioned above by Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs), and precedent noted in above comment by Durova (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't have the reliable secondary sources we need to write a biography. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. -Nard 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The article has no real sources nor had even any before being trimmed. The section that the subject seems to object to did not have a source directly naming him as the radio personality in question and should not be included without very reliable sources. Should there be adequate WP:RS to have an article on the man, then it should be strictly trimmed to what's sourced as per WP:BLP. I wouldn't mind having a non-controversial stub in this instance but the fact that the subject (supposedly) wishes it gone leans me towards delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We might also just redirect it to 5AA, which is a slightly ugly article that could use work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I went looking for sources by which this article could be expanded, and there basically aren't any that I can find. The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Balloonman. The person is a significant enough public figure. He has gained a major award. We don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like it; they accept that by being in a position that puts them into the public spotlight, they accept everything that comes with that position, including all the bad press and criticism. This article therefore meets WP:PEOPLE in that quote: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. According to the WP:PEOPLE guidelines, if the article meets one of the following criteria, it may stay. ThePointblank (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the WP:BIO guidelines, the subject is notable enough that we can suspect there are adequate Reliable sources to write a Verifiable, NPOV, NOR article. It does not necessarily mean the article should stay; just that we shouldn't assume that reliable sources are not available and speedy delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The award is the only thing that is referenced in there. Can anyone back up the rest of the article with references too? If the subject objects, we need to hold the article to a higher quality standard if we want to include it. No 3 months to find sources, it has to be speedy (as in found fast, not speedy deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I am opposed by principle to article subjects deciding whether they should have an article or not. If the person meets our current notability requirements, then an article is warranted (and it appears that this person is, indeed, notable enough for an article). We may someday want to reposition the "notability bar", as it were, but wherever we place it it must be applied uniformly. — Coren (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability requires reliable sources discussing him. Can you identify a few? There is hardly anything to go on as far as I can tell. So regardless of him having won a relatively minor award (one of 80 awarded that year, and one of three awarded that year in that same category), I'd say he still fails notability due to the lack of meaningful coverage in secondary sources. Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to 5AA per Keith Conlon. Grsz11 →Review! 00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. So the whole idea is that he won a major award, so he gets into Wikipedia whether he likes it or not? Well, I don't know how major an award it is, because in an hour of searching, I could only find three independent news articles about the entire award program, and two of them didn't mention him. The third, here, garnered him three sentences in the third blurb of the catch-all celebrity column of his local newspaper. He is not the anchor of the broadcast, he's the "colour man". I mean, I'm sure he's funny as all get-out, and I have to admire the fact that he won for a comedy routine based on International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but still... Risker (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, not a single reference to him that meets WP:RS. Keeping on the basis of a minor award is absurd. ~ priyanath talk 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Balloonman. Kittybrewster ☎ 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Blake's ACRA Award satisfies WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Durova. Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above delete comments. Borderline bios should always be removed if the subject requests. We are reasonable people - let's not kick up a fuss over this. We have millions of articles; this one will not be missed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How do you turn this on, immediately above, has this exactly right. The "notability" was extremely marginal to begin with. Deor (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Marginal BLP. Non-public figure. Apparently subject requested. He meets WP:BIO barely but no biographical sketch has been made of him so we can't really make a proper article. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Risker and Doc_g. Avruch T 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I have consistently advocated ignoring the desires of the subject about whether to have an article. But unless the station has national reach, or there are sufficient published comments about his show outside the area, I don't think he's notable. I consider an award for a single segment like this minor.--it was not for his show in general.DGG (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but only on notability grounds, and explicitly not because of subject request. Works for a notable station, but one award of unclear importance would not make the subject notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete the one award does not make him notable, nor does the fact he work for a radio station. Notability should reflect his individual contribution. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: His "individual contribution" has been recognised by an national industry-wide award. How is this not notable? How many awards would he need to win, in your opinion, for him to be considered notable? I'm not aware of a WP threshold for such things. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take the time to read your notability policy, which has been linked to several times, and I will link to again Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). It doesn't matter how many awards this guy has one, even if he had won 5 Oscars and 5 Nobel Prizes he still wouldn't be notable if there was no substanial coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. Generally speaking, people who have won major awards do get coverage of reliable secondary sources but it's not always the case, and it's not even clear if the award is really that major Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: His "individual contribution" has been recognised by an national industry-wide award. How is this not notable? How many awards would he need to win, in your opinion, for him to be considered notable? I'm not aware of a WP threshold for such things. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree with Nil Einne. The key aspect of proving notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources which I believe Jon Blake fails. Jon Blake rates hardly a mention in actual articles in a Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStrong delete per Risker. If the ACRA appeared to be the equivalent of the Marconi Award here in the States, this would be a no-brainer keep. But that doesn't appear to be the case ... the ceremony doesn't seem to get much coverage in the mainstream press. I'm willing to change my !vote if I'm wrong on this, though. Blueboy96 04:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that a strong delete, as not even 5AA's Website mentions this award. If the station didn't think this award was big enough to tout in its promotions, it's definitely not a notable award. Blueboy96 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Durova, DGG and Michellecrisp have said which I don't really need to repeat in here. Australian Commercial Radio Awards rarely gets national media coverage. Only coverage it gets is on the radio stations who are apart of the host of the awards which is Commercial Radio Australia and sometimes local newspapers but I don't see how this person is notable for Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable and public figure. People have heard of him. On principal keep it, because public figures do not get to decide if there is an article about them on wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if people have heard of him. A lot of people have heard of Corey Worthington and Corey Delaney and a whole load of other people who we don't and shouldn't have articles on. The threshold on wikipedia is always notability as defined by the guidelines, not 'people have heard of him' which is an incredibly POOR way to decide if we should have an article (how many people have to have heard of someone to be notable? how do we decide how many people have heard of someone?)
- Comment: The threshold for inclusion in WP is WP:V, not WP:NOTE. The former is a policy. The latter is merely a guideline. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if people have heard of him. A lot of people have heard of Corey Worthington and Corey Delaney and a whole load of other people who we don't and shouldn't have articles on. The threshold on wikipedia is always notability as defined by the guidelines, not 'people have heard of him' which is an incredibly POOR way to decide if we should have an article (how many people have to have heard of someone to be notable? how do we decide how many people have heard of someone?)
- Keep is a notable individual. And part of historic law case [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fu.Kings.Lut (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that someone was involved in a 'historic' case doesn't make them notable. You need coverage of the person in reliable secondary sources. As it stands, we don't even seem to have an article on the case nor can I find substanial mention of the case so I fail to see how you can even claim the case is 'historic'. (And as I've said, if you could prove the case was 'historic' that would solely be an argument for keeping an article on the case not the persons involved)Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The account that gives the 'keep' here has very few edits and appears to be trolling the page. Note the edit summary on prior edit.[2] Indeffed for username violation. DurovaCharge! 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that someone was involved in a 'historic' case doesn't make them notable. You need coverage of the person in reliable secondary sources. As it stands, we don't even seem to have an article on the case nor can I find substanial mention of the case so I fail to see how you can even claim the case is 'historic'. (And as I've said, if you could prove the case was 'historic' that would solely be an argument for keeping an article on the case not the persons involved)Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there appears to be dispute whether the award he won is a major award. Be that as it may, it doesn't matter. The guidelines on notability are quite explicity on this. The only criteria for notability is substanial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Someone who has won a major award is usually covered in reliable secondary sources hence it's sometimes a convient shortcut to look at what a person has done to decide in the absence of other evidence. But Dragon flight has looked for coverage of this guy and found none. Particularly given the dispute of how major the award is, it is the responsibility of those who claim he is notable to prove it. Not by showing how many awards he's won or by showing how many people have heard of him or whatever legal cases he has been involved in, as none of these prove his notability; but by showing coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article means nothing to us (seriously very low interest etc) but could have unpleasant consequences for the subject. We are not here to mess with other peoples lives. — Realist2 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability marginal at best, the award doesn't seem significant enough by itself to give notability, especially when the subject requests deletion. Hut 8.5 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete marginal notability, subject expresses a preference for not having an article, past issues. I think we are better off without this one. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I've never heard of this individual before. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There are not very many sources [3] - 397 Google results for "Jon Blake" + Adelaide. By comparison, that is not much more than the number of internet pages that mention me, but I'm definitely not notable. The 397 google results are mainly non-reliable sources. There simply isn't much to go on to make a proper biography on Wikipedia, so in this case, I think we are better off without this article. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Low enc, we gain nothing by keeping the article except potential distress for the subject in question. smooth0707 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There had been another claim of notability (now deleted from the article with a vague IMO edit-summary, which concerned me): being involved in a court case relating to his broadcasting work...was covered in some major publications, one of which was cited in the article. Although the cite mentioned the radio program, it didn't mention Blake by name (although it did mention some co-hosts). Without something to tie Blake himself to this case, I don't think it should be included nor be used to support notability. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ASAP as a courtesy to the subject. -- IRP ☎ 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is an assertion of notability, but it is unclear whether the award is enough to meet notability guidelines. —Snigbrook 21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The idea that we must keep an article, regardless of the subject's feelings does not sit well with me. If we adhere to all if/then guidelines, we, as contributors, lose control over issues like this. Law shoot! 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because it's the decent thing to do in the case of a very marginally notable individual. Wikipedia will be just fine without an article on this guy -- it's not like he's George Bush (or Kevin Rudd). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While I want to make it absolutely clear that courtesy to the subject isn't a factor at all for me, and I don't think that kind of subjective moral nonsense has any place here, the subject really has no claim to notability; being involved in a single court case does not confer that, unless it was an especially notable court case, which this was not. Celarnor Talk to me 15:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Risker and How do you turn this on. Notability is in question, sources are shaky, award is not major and in cases such as these, where it's borderline and where the subject of the article does not want a biography on Wikipedia, we should respect that and remove it. لennavecia 15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This appears to be a case of Blake wanting to suppress a South Australian Supreme Court judgement that he defamed a cafe owner:
- JUDGE DAVID TAYLOR offered the comment about breakfast broadcaster 'KEEFY' (5AA radio comedian JON BLAKE): "The only part of the program that makes sense is the initial giving of the temperature." Judge Taylor spoke as he dismissed a defamation claim by cafe owner DOMINIC COSENZA against 5AA owner, Festival City Broadcasters. Cosenza - also known as 'The Flash Man' - runs a Hindley Street cafe. The Judge disagreed with Cosenza's claim; His Honour said the broadcast was 'a comic program of complete nonsense', according to MICHAEL OWEN-BROWN, reporting in Saturday's 'Tiser.
- The matter was originally heard in the South Australian District Court. The judge hearing the case found that the broadcast wasn't defamatory, but Mr Cosenza appealed the decision in the South Australian Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling and found in his favour. ... Mr Cosenza's lawyer is Peter Hannon. He says the radio station overstepped a line when the breakfast program's fictional weather man, Keefy, went on a walkabout in Adelaide's Hindley Street, unaware of the existence of Flash Gelateria, an ice-cream shop and café, run by Dominic Cosenza.
- It appears to have been a total accident that Blake made defamatory remarks from a total coincidence of fictional names used in the skit, but the court found that was irrelevant as damage was done by the mistake. Sounds like it could have been a notable ruling, but that needs some experienced in law sources. You won't find it in Google news I wouldn't have thought, it happened in 2000/2001. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've dropped a note at WP:LAW. [4] MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is the case, then I'm even more inclined to keep!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak, almost full keep Willing public figures (which he certainly is) should not get courtesy deletion, and I've seen no evidence that the individual in question claiming to be Blake is in fact Blake. I'm not however completely convinced that the individual meets WP:BIO. The Sunday Mail article combined with other coverage which is apparently primarily behind Pay Walls such as as an article in The Advertiser, and the award mentioned in the article seem to arguably meet that standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed... if this was a non-public figure, I would be more inclined to delete. As a public figure, he knowingly chose a field that opens himself up to coverage. It might be different if we were talking about a college professor or a person whose notability derived from an isolated unwanted event. Eg if "Joe the Plumber" had chosen not to embrace his notability and asked to be deleted, I'd be more inclined to honor the request. But here we are talking about a notable personality on a notable radio station in Australia. If it wasn't for his request, how many of the deletes above would disappear as there is sufficeint notability to warrant an article?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think he's so notable and there is plenty to say, then how about expanding the article to three or four times its current size? Dragons flight (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed... if this was a non-public figure, I would be more inclined to delete. As a public figure, he knowingly chose a field that opens himself up to coverage. It might be different if we were talking about a college professor or a person whose notability derived from an isolated unwanted event. Eg if "Joe the Plumber" had chosen not to embrace his notability and asked to be deleted, I'd be more inclined to honor the request. But here we are talking about a notable personality on a notable radio station in Australia. If it wasn't for his request, how many of the deletes above would disappear as there is sufficeint notability to warrant an article?---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject is at best of borderline notability and given that the subject appears to want it gone, I for one am happy to accede to that request per Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am not sure what relevance the court case cited by Mick MacNee has at all in this case. Of course the subject wants to supress the information in the article, that's the point of requesting a delete. There is zero evidence that the case is notable at all other than to someone wanting to have shot at the subject. The idea that working in broadcasting means that you forfeit any rights that other subjects have on wiki is on the face of it ludicruous. This isn't the Nine Network news anchor, but a very minor radio personality with an audience limited to the one city. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert in finding legal specific sources as opposed to google the names, I have no way of knowing if this is a landmark ruling or was an important precedent or not. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and redirect to 5AA. Blake is just another radio announcer at a station with a moderate share of a strictly local audience. His notability I see as much under borderline - many other broadcasters (like Keith Conlon who's article is a redirect) are far more notable, in Conlon's case for his writing and broadcasting work outside of 5AA. Unlike his collegue Blake's not very widely active in the public eye outside of 5AA. Blake has almost zero news impact in Adelaide - beyond station publicity and gossip pages - Peripitus (Talk) 23:19, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- RCube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a Rubik cube tutorial, one of many on the net. There is no reason to believe that this one is in any way notable, there is no assertion of notability in the article and no references are provided SpinningSpark 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For now. Doesn't seem very notable, I can't find much in the way of sources. I have added the AfD new user warning template to the user talk page for User:Southallda as this is their first attempt at article creation. Given this, I'll have a dig for sources and notability backing - if I find anything I might change my mind. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I forgot to say that the creating user may be the publisher of this software product. E.g., see here [5] where publisher name is given as Dale Southall. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is correct, I am the author of this software, my attempt was to add some (attempting to be unbiased) core details of the functionality and workings of the program. There are currently no major Rubik’s cube programs available, and i was attempting to bring details of the program which brings the most functionality (again as i believe). The page was left as a stub, so that people could get an overview of the software (as it is just being released) and could then extend the page. This software is quite unique as it is the only fully functional Rubiks cube program with 'using', 'learning' and 'solving' abilities. I am however biased (being the author) - and that is the reason why I was trying to get people to change/edit what i had wrote (with the stub and modification tags). Do you think that this article would benefit from some of the text which i have written being deleted, so that it can in the future be added by neutral parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southallda (talk • contribs) 12:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It's not the place to come to document the heretofore undocumented. What benefits articles at Wikipedia is in-depth documentation, published outside of Wikipedia, by multiple people who are independent of the subject and its creator(s), and who are reliable for their fact checking and accuracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Until a subject has been properly documented outside of Wikipedia, been acknowledge by people outside of its creators/inventors/authors, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the main wikipedia page for the Rubik's Cube there is a section on software, and it does not seem right for Wikipedia to have a section on software, but then fail to give even a single example. As i noted previously; there is no piece of software availible which is substancially more notable, although a fair few have been around for a while. Maybe some of the content should be cut, with some more references being added to the information availible on the website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southallda (talk • contribs) 20:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read our Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. It's not the place to come to document the heretofore undocumented. What benefits articles at Wikipedia is in-depth documentation, published outside of Wikipedia, by multiple people who are independent of the subject and its creator(s), and who are reliable for their fact checking and accuracy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Until a subject has been properly documented outside of Wikipedia, been acknowledge by people outside of its creators/inventors/authors, and accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There was a list in the Rubik's cube article at one time. It got out of hand and was moved to a separate page. That page was AfD'd, discussion here. SpinningSpark 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although the author meant well in adding the article, there's simply co coverage in reliable sources to establish this as a notable piece of software -- Whpq (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conquer The World Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe this label is an important part of the hardcore genre, having released a multitude of important album by such bands as Culture, Chokehold, boysetsfire and Morning Again. those alone are incredibly important bands in the hardcore genre. Though the label has a bad reputation, as mentioned on the page, it still has done a part in the music scene. -HDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by HDS (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 November 2008
- Delete - I don't see any sources supporting this label as an important part of the hardcore genre -- Whpq (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CTW was a very influential 90s DIY hardcore and indie label. Don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.71 (talk)
- Reply - There needs to be reliable sources to support the assertion that they were an influential indie label. Do you know of magazine articles or similar coverage that would support notability? -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't have an ID here, I'm the person and the record company in the article. I put out those records, I ran the label, I am known as Mike CTW. Now I wouldn't mind if there was a cool page about the label but if there is going to be a wiki war with this kids goal of libel then I would rather have the page just deleted. The page was made by that HDS kid Alex whom was a huge fan of the label but recently has decided to spin the most negative trash about me because one of his buddies bought some old label releases from me and I didn't send them out immediately. Too much information aside CTW was very influential in many ways but unless you personally follow the genre you would have no idea anything about the label or the bands or the bands I signed and how they influenced music even today. But hey delete the page if you want this is 15 years after the fact of starting the label I run another business now. CTW will always be remembered with or without this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.71 (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrierhere (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Whatever your personal feelings about the article/label in question, unless it demonstrates notability per WP:CORP, then it will be deleted. Please do not take the deletion personnally, we aren't attacking you in any way. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CTW wasn't a business so I don't know you would put me in some corporate category. CTW was a legendary 90s indie record label and if you don't know about that genre of music then you really have zero business even in the article to begin with.Label aside CTW put out the first audio book of a paid podcast in the world. So if thats not notable then really I don't care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.93.71 (talk) 07:26, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bonza voyage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable book. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are only 32 Ghits for "Bonza voyage", and all of the relevant ones are clearly the author promoting his own work. No hits in Google news. Book is published by LuLu, a borderline vanity press which charges its authors to publish their works. The uncited critical acclaim section is corrupted by weasel words. Furthermore, the author has an apparant conflict of interest with the site.Themfromspace (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. You can publish there without paying a penny. - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I was a bit too consice with my wording about Lulu. While they don't charge to publish a book, they do charge for services that standard publishers do not, such as marketing promotions. The reason I brought up the publisher is that anyone can publish through Lulu, so the fact that the book is in existance is not an argument for its notability. Themfromspace (talk) 01:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't. You can publish there without paying a penny. - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources only show it had one favorable review. Nothing else in the article is covered. Also, if we can speedy articles on album for which we don't have artist articles, it stands to reason we shouldn't keep the book if we don't have an article on the author. - Mgm|(talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Book articles should be kept if the book is notable like my articles with red linked authors. Same with albums. Schuym1 (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete book is not even in Worldcat. We do not speedy books because it is too hard to recognize on sight which ones might be important -- and there are a great many notable authors, especially of books from the earlier & middle parts of the 20th century we don't have included. This is probably not the case with popular music, so the deletions are safer. I've pulled a lot of prize-winning undoubtedly notable book articles off of Prod--the people entering them don't realize what makes for notability, and people nominate for deletion without checking. Not that i recognize them all either--but I do check. DGG (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article's creator recently removed the AfD notice on the article's page. I have restored the tag. Themfromspace (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, article more intent on promoting the book rather than establishing notability. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would not appear to meet any of the five notability criteria at WP:NB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:57, 4 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. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Offset Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy, db-spam. The problems with the article are primary sources only, no external assertion of notability and one product to be yet released. I believe it was a reasonable speedy but I might have been wrong. Thank you for your reconsideration. Tone 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability has been established if you read the article, assertion of notability is established. I have no clue what you want from it other then what is already there. And it was speedy deleted on the grounds of it being "blatant advertising" which it's not. Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL? May be notable in the future, but the article says that at this time they haven't made a single game. Getting on AOTS and having some barely famous founders isn't deserving of an article.--Koji† 14:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It seems dubious that a game company founded in 2004 has yet to release a single game. And they've been bought by Intel this year, so it's totally unclear that they will ever release anything. Also, all the references in the article are primary sources associated with the company. I'd say it fails WP:CORP and WP:CRYSTAL. VG ☎ 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL says nothing of the sort. The policy is there to define rumors, this is not a rumor. And even defining crystal as a reason as this is a "company" not a "product" is silly. The company very much exists. I have added reliable sources to the sections which used primary sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Havok (talk • contribs)
- User:Havok seems to have "retired" a year ago, in a storm of disparaging remarks about Wikipedia [6]. VG ☎ 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And on which planet does this have anything to do with the AFD? Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's misleading information. You should remove the message unless you plan to actually retire, besides that, (see my note to delete below, I am putting this here as I have more to say). Secondly, what does this have to do with an AFD you ask? Well, this account that claims to have retired, and is yet still editing could be signs of a compromised account, and should therefore be blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think my account has been compromised, then by all means, report me to the administration. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that retirement and vanishing are two different things, just in case anyone thinks the two are the same. MuZemike (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think my account has been compromised, then by all means, report me to the administration. Havok (T/C/e/c) 18:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's misleading information. You should remove the message unless you plan to actually retire, besides that, (see my note to delete below, I am putting this here as I have more to say). Secondly, what does this have to do with an AFD you ask? Well, this account that claims to have retired, and is yet still editing could be signs of a compromised account, and should therefore be blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 11:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And on which planet does this have anything to do with the AFD? Havok (T/C/e/c) 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Havok seems to have "retired" a year ago, in a storm of disparaging remarks about Wikipedia [6]. VG ☎ 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no notability established for the article, and just because someone notable works there, does not make the company notable, neither does being bought out by Intel, please read WP:NOTINHERITED.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 10:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Performing a quick web search shows that coverage of the sort required by WP:N appears to be all related to the Intel aquisition. This is rather WP:1E-ish but I'll give the benefit of the doubt due to their IGF nomination. Marasmusine (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, a merge & redirect with Intel would suffice, right? If all of the notability centers around the Intel acquisition, it can be easily covered in a sentence or two in that article.--Koji† 21:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prize was won by the previous employer of the founders; the mention of the award in this article is just WP:COATRACK. Also, there is no depth of coverage whatsoever about the company or its only product, which didn't even ship, let alone win any awards. The only mentions in the specialized press are trivial in relation to Intel's acquisition of this company. VG ☎ 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also looking at http://www.projectoffset.com/team.php shows a lot of new staff members compared to their pre-Intel days. xedaf (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the coverage about the company is simply that it got bought. That's really being known for one event. There's no coverage about the company and it has yet to release a single product. The award is not one that was given to this company, but rather for previous work for a different company by the founders of the company. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A stubby article for a stubby company but no reason to delete. Notability is somewhat borderline but as a company important enough for Intel to acquire certainly suggests notability. Sources also need to be added but they too exist. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but consider merge - passes the notability requirement, because it's obviously a big acquisition for Intel with coverage of that in the news. That said, a merge might be appropriate to an article on Intel or something like that. The article is pretty stubby, and small companies that get bought out may not get much more coverage to build a real article. Discuss a merge, but later. Randomran (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is not at all "obviously a big aquisition for Intel". The only news I found were in gaming related publications. These cover the gaming niche and so the acquisition of any gaming company would rightly get an article there. But I see no coverage at all in any mainstream or business press. In other words, the level of coverage is actually not very substantial, and exists only because of the acquisition. I fail to see how this overcomes being just a news event. -- Whpq (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, consider merge - If push come to shove, I think it should be merged. If we can find any more infomation about the company, (e.g. any game that have been missed), then we should keep it. It seems that this "project offset" might be a big thing for them. Skullbird11 (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A search has been conducted and turned up only the information about the acquisition by Intel. And there isn't likely much more to be written about it as they have not released any games. As for the speculation that this "might be big for them", articles aren't kept on speculation. There's no indication that that this is a big deal as I noted in a pervious comment as there are only a few gaming related publications that covered the acquisition. If it were potentially a big thing, the financial press would have some coverage as it would be material to Intel's potential future earnings. -- Whpq (talk) 20:48, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hvad der siden hændte rødhætte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Mainly promotional, speculates on future sales, provides no sources to support notability, and is essentially a copy of twice-deleted biography of author. Initially I tagged this for speedy delete as biography--in its original form it was a replica of the since-deleted bio. JNW (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not to mention the title is not in English as well, and would be rather hard to search for. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in Google Book Search, nothing in Google Scholar, and nothing in Google News. Simply fails WP:NB. DARTH PANDAduel 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The user in question just uploaded Thomsen Syndrome, apparently related to Zakarias Thomsen, which was speedily deleted yesterday, along with Gungu Mastaya. Both the latter articles were created by the other acount that has made any substantial edits to this article. -- roleplayer 16:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Roleplayer. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 3 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 Withdrawn/Keep. Notability has been sufficiently established. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hasan Izzet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I declined a speedy on this article because it asserts some notability and also has an article on the Turkish Wikipedia: tr:Hasan İzzet Paşa. Is this general notable? Cunard (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also the German Wikipedia, and the Bergmann Offensive --FcSphere (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The German article shows the notability through multiple major awards. Like many articles there, its not really sourced, but at least we have an EB reference to start with. DGG (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per DGG. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A general in charge of an army is certainly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:42, 1 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 (CSD G4) by Kurt Shaped Box. NAC. Cliff smith talk 23:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Album release has not been officially verified. If article creator disagrees, the article needs citation with a reliable source, per WP:V. Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. It's a repost: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpersonal (Aliana Lohan Album) (with incorrect capitalisation).—Kww(talk) 21:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Deleteper CSD G4, also might the author of this article be a sock of a recently blocked user for creating fabricated articles on the same artist? Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. I've brought it to a couple of admins attention. If they decline to block, I'll go back through SSP or RFCU.—Kww(talk) 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: CSD-G4. Schuym1 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simone Biffi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Vanity autobiography. Notability not apparent from article or Google searches. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chic Today about his magazine. Sandstein 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't manage to fail WP:A7, but fails WP:BIO and obviously WP:COI. DARTH PANDAduel 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly a massive ball of self-promotion (sole significant contributor is an editor named... wait for it... Simone Biffi!) Please note comments in other AfD mentioned above. B.Wind (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete massive ball of something, thats for sure. JBsupreme (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per everyone. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:42, 4 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 Pegasus, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Claire tchaikowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested PROD. Non notable artist failing WP:MUSIC, debut album not even released yet M0RD00R (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:A7 or WP:G11. Tagged as such. DARTH PANDAduel 21:34, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Adaxial UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Small record label with unclear notability. Author also created the article Vernon g segaram about the founder, then blanked it. No sources to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original author here... i havnt finished making the page yet. Vernon G Segaram is referenced. Please understand that the page Vernon g segaram is different from the prior mentioned page. with consideration to the UK Tamil Music Industry, adaxial UK is the leading label. sorry for any incovenience. making a page on wikipedia is a time-consuming thing as im sure you understand. so please bear with me. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankar1987 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete if the absenses of sources, notability, or meeting any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC weren't enough, the page authors appeal for non-deletion because he's not "finished yet" should push this into the speedy category.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A non-notable record label. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - WP:HOAX, bad references. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, reliable sourcing on this is so lacking that it it possible hoax per Æåm Fætsøn. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 5 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. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jackson Rhythmist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about fictional guitar, original research with no references, hangs around since 2006. Doesn't seem to be even a somewhat popular meme. Contains links to particular persons/acts, which look offensive/abusive for these persons/acts. GreyCat (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax? Even if it isn't, it is completely not notable. DARTH PANDAduel 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't understand. If it's fictional, how can it be highly sought after, or rare? Except in the fictional context, obviously, but the article doesn't seem to be saying that. Anyway, whatever it is, it isn't notable. gnfnrf (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - There isn't enough context to say that that it's even a guitar until the end of the 1st sentence. No mention of it in the website and it looks like a tub of jargon. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 10:47, 4 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. No reliable sources, and the Keep votes don't have a policy-based rationale. One editor voted Keep, conditional on reliable sources being added. There are still none. Article could easily be recreated if sources were found. The third article included in this AfD has some references, but they are not about the specific tour that is the subject. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What Will the Neighbours Say? Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-Notable tour. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
- Chemistry Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Sound of Girls Aloud: The Greatest Hits Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. This group's visual appeal, and their tackling whether to sing live or not, and the commercial reactions to that, are essential elements of the understanding of this act. Thus, articles about their tours are just as notable as the many existing articles about their albums, their songs, and their video releases. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those arguments address the nomination or any reasons why it should stay according to the General Notability Guidelines. You may like it, but that isn't a reason to keep it. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no doubt that Girls Aloud easily clear the WP:BAND bar. The problem is that the article in question has no significant sources - just one promotional external link. Conditional keep, with the condition being that sources independent of the group and label covered this one-month tour (and the others, too). In this case, articles from local news sites would be ideal. B.Wind (talk) 03:38, 26 October 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) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails to meet WP:GNG. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, they are both notable events that have occured!! Liamr02 —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:32, 2 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ConceptDraw MINDMAP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable software. prod removed no refs added. Mission Fleg (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Google turns up several reviews at major sites such as MacNN and many consumer comments. Not that this is very remarkable software, but the article isn't too effusive and it does appear to be a major player in its market. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There is a page for different mindmap softwares, where this software has an entry. I have nothing to do with this it personally, but it is one of just three such programs that I have been aware of for a number of years. I think it will be useful to keep the page, as anybody looking for this sort of software should be informed of the possible options open to them. Jason404 (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it's listed on the Apple website, it is undeniably notable. DARTH PANDAduel 21:13, 31 October 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 Student's t-distribution#Table of selected values. MBisanz talk 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- T-table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod - This table is redundant - it is also here: Student's t-distribution#Table of selected values, with better context and description —G716 <T·C> 05:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom - what's more to say. Hmm, there is the prod contest. But that doesn't justify keeping the article, only merging it. Maybe coordinating with user:dmcg026 and then doing SPEEDY would be better than AfD. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Student's t-distribution#Table of selected values - Atmoz (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Student's t-distribution. The two tables are different in that they deal with one-sided and two-sided distributions. However, both tables belong in the main article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The tables are different. I don't see the merit in forcing a large table into the Student's t-distribution article, which would make it unreadable ...it is only useful to some who would need the main article. I would suggest moving the existing table out of Student's t-distribution and merging both versions of the table within T-table with a suitable explanation of difference between the two versions. Melcombe (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP is not a repository for bare reference tables. If it's not generally relevant enough to belong in the article, it probably doesn't belong in WP. We do have periodic tables, tables of world records, etc, but those are linked to serve as indexes to articles. Why is a WP search for "T-table" better than a Google search (or any other search engine) which produces a variety of different tables of equal or higher quality. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wikibooks, which should have a section of miscellaneous mathematical tables. We are not an update of the CRC Handbook; they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In the above discussion just about every possible AfD outcome is recommended once. Most remarkable. Sandstein 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My position should not be misunderstood. I support deletion; I just think it should be transwikied first, unless they already have this table. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a bare table is not an encyclopedia article -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOT. This does not look like an encyclopedia article. I'm not even sure that the related table in Student's t-distribution#Table of selected values makes sense to have there. (It looks to be a waste of space in that article, breaking the train of thought). Maybe it would be OK to retain the latter table if the number of rows were cut down significantly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki, then delete, per Septentrionalis. -- Avenue (talk) 06:24, 4 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. MBisanz talk 13:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come What May (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, no sources, written as an advertisement Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does need citations, but the film is notable. It's been promoted heavily by the American Family Association. --216.47.130.100 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Article can not inherit notability from other articles. You must show multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources that discuss this film. Can you find any? Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - there does seem to be sufficient sourcing out there (e.g. [7], [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77628]). Scog (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Because World Net Daily and Christian Post are reliable sources? You can not make a NPOV article that only uses WND as a source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm aware, the Christian Post is a reliable source; World Net Daily I'm less sure about, but it may be reliable in this context, even if not in general. Incidentally, here's another source that was already included in the article, but not visible because of a missing references tag (now fixed): [8] Scog (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Could not find any reliable sources other than the one's left in the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending sources being added. I'm willing to give this a chance because a) there is reference to the film being given an award and b) I'm getting the sense that some potential sources are being discounted simply because they aren't of the same scope as the New York Times. Obviously this film fits into a particular genre, and is clearly an independent (ie. non-major-studio) production, but I don't see why it can't be a viable article nor disqualified from Wikipedia inclusion. If someone has proof this article is a hoax, however, please PM me and I will change my vote accordingly. But I don't get that vibe. 23skidoo (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment after some thought, and due to lack of feedback on this AFD, I wonder if merging with American Family Association might be sufficent, there is one or two sources that could work as part of a larger article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a list of 8 references, which were somehow deleted last week: (There seems to be a strong bias by some Wikipedia gatekeepers against Advent Film Group (AFG)and "Come What May." If that is so, please let us know what else we need to do to prove our viability and acceptance in the marketplace. AFG's Wikipedia entry was deleted last year and now a similar attempt is happening with "Come What May." (George Escobar, Founder of AFG))
- Delete I don’t see why this film is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia, even one as extensive as wikipedia. The audience is very small and self selecting due to the ideological nature of the film (politically and socially conservative message, along with it using PHC and moot court as its subjects), so I doubt if it has been viewed by more than a few hundred people. The film features no notable actors, producers, directors, musicians, or writers. It was a low budget/low quality feature length film which seems to suggest little interest on the part of donors. Essentially, this film has had 0 cultural impact and really shouldn’t be included in this resource. It is little more than a personal venture and has about as much credibility as any long, home made movie. Its inclusion hurts the credibility of wikipedia as a serious encyclopedia. Perhaps if it is picked up by a larger distributor, the question should be revisited. (PS: I am a conservative, a former home schooler, and an alumni of PHC so I have no bias or reason for saying any of this aside from it being fact.)165.13.206.245 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The previous writer makes statements that are obviously quite partial, biased, and uninformed, as follows:
1) Audience is very small. (FACTS: The potential audience is quite large: 1.5 million homeschoolers, plus another 10 million former homeschoolers collectivey over the past 30 years. Now add the "Modesty Movement," pro-life/pro-family groups and their constituents, speech and debate leagues, Christian filmmakers. Finally, in the last two weeks, over 3.5 million people received an email blast from the American Family Association about "Come What May", plus promos on over 200 American Family Radio stations. Family Life in Focus has done 3 Radio interviews and features about the movie, as have half-a-dozen other conservative radio programs, ABC News Affiliate in Harrisonburg, VA also did a 5 minute news segment.
2. I doubt it has been viewed by more than a few hundred people. (FACTS: About 5,000 preview audiences have seen the movie in theaters, performing arts centers and churches. Another 715,000 have seen it online over the last week on GodTube and American Family Association websites. Thousands of Preview Edition DVDs have been sold. More people have seen "Come What May" Group page in GodTube than all of the Group pages combined on their "featured" Group main page, including Group Pages for Obama and McCain. The only exception is the "Wow Music Video" Group.)
3. Little interest on the part of donors. (FACTS: The movie was extremely well received by a large group of investors. 30 accredited investors, as qualified by the SEC, funded the movie through a private placement offering. In October alone, since we launched the online marketing of the movie, "Come What May" has received the endorsement and support of over a dozen large pro-family and homeschooling groups and several dozen pro-life groups across the country. We have received over 1,000 handwritten and email overwhelmingly positive comments about the movie. We would be happy to post these documented comments online in the Wikipedia article to prove the acceptance and viability of this movie.
4. 0 cultural impact (FACTS: Advent Film Group received a 2008 Redemptive Storyteller Award precisely because the judges felt the movie can make a significant cultural impact, showcasing "dating vs. courtship," dramatically explaining "When life begins," and making the legal argument for how "Roe vs. Wade" could be overturned. Here is a quote about CWM from John Erickson, the author of "Hank the Cowdog" which has sold over 7 million copies and a book series that USA Today called the "The best family entertainment in years." Mr. Erickson says: "There is so much to admire about "Come What May:" the music, the acting, the characters, the story. You won't go into depression after viewing it. It's fresh, honest, and beautiful. It's more than 'a good Christian movie. It's a good movie!" -- John R. Erickson, author of Hank the Cowdog"
5. little more than a personal venture... as much credibility as any long, home made movie. (The writer claims no bias by that statement? Really?) (FACTS: The movie has garnered EIGHT distribution offers, including from Provident Films (a unit of Sony). Provident is the distributor of "Facing The Giants" and "Fireproof" both of which were significant Christian hits, earning over $30 million for FTG and over $25 for Fireproof in just six weeks.) We have also received a distribution offer from one of the companies that distributed "Passion of the Christ." Clearly professional distributors are credible and see value in distributing "Come What May." To put the distribution offers in context, there are about 4,000 feature films made a year in the U.S. (studio and independents). Only about 5% of them get a single distribution offer. For "Come What May" to receive 8 distribution offers surely merits some credibility.
6. an alumni of PHC so I have no bias or reason... (SUGGESTION: Please read this alumni's comments objectively and see if you can find no bias.)
- Comment okay, this whole conversation has nothing to do with an AFD. The issue is that notability and verifiability are not established, there are not enough reliable sources to write an article. Therefore, delete, maybe merge. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I've added the ref from the Christian Post, which I think is a reliable source (moreso than WND anyway) and also added some refs to back up the award the movie has won. I think it's just enough to establish notability. Raven1977 (talk) 01:27, 4 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 and merge to Lana Marks. (non-admin closure). ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lana J. Marks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's no indication that she is notable except in connection with the brand Lana Marks, which has its own article. Some biographical info about her could presumably go there. Much as people known for only one event should be covered in the article about the event, it seems that someone known only for a brand can be covered in the article about the brand, particularly since the brand shares her name. Having Lana Marks and Lana J. Marks articles seems redundant.
I had added a PROD. The creator removed it with no explanation, and even marked the edit as minor. KCinDC (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lana Marks, for obvious reasons. gnfnrf (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I don't see how the information in her biography can aid the Lana Marks article. However, it may be a good idea to simply redirect to Lana Marks. DARTH PANDAduel 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:31, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hobsons Prize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not yet notable prize. No references available outside of the company awarding the prize and one article in a trade publication. Proposed for deletion tag removed by page author User:HobsonsInt, with strong possibility of conflict of interest (prize is awarded by "Hobsons International") ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Google search got only a single hit and a GNews search turned up nothing. I tried several versions of the Prize name too. DARTH PANDAduel 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per this search. Schuym1 (talk) 21:18, 31 October 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:A7. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bryan Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources have been provided to prove this person's notability. Searches through several databases return nothing about this dissertation or the compilation with Dr. Muskal. I can find nothing related to the "Good School Functional Model" in database searches or in the education textbooks to which I have access. Metros (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Tagged as such. DARTH PANDAduel 20:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per Darth Panda --Numyht (talk) 20:53, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Guardian Units of Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article still doesn't establish notability independent of the Sonic the Hedgehog series, despite the fact that people claimed it was going to be worked on. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, this is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With some work, this can become a decent article, we just need some good editors who are available, and can dig up reliable, and relevant info. I say give it some time, and if it doesn't im prove, merge into the other article. With notice. Skeletal SLJCOAAATR Soulsor 20:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the two months since the last AfD, only a sentence and a inter-wiki link have added to it. That is plenty of time to at least assert the notability that was claimed to exist in the last AfD. TTN (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last AfD was two months ago, enough time for editors who are available to dig up reliable and relevant info. But that didn't happen, so that argument is void. Outside that, there are no sources to indicate notability. Therefore, the article should be merged, probably to Sonic the Hedgehog (series), unless a better target is found. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Wikipedia:Five pillars. Article needs a bit of work but it can become a good one with time. I can get you a reception section with third party refs easy. I'll use a fan forum to see what fans think of the organization. You can't get more official than getting it straight from the horses mouth.Fairfieldfencer FFF 20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: if that's the best you can do, then we unfortunately have to delete, because the article will still fail WP:N and WP:V. Fan forums fail our WP:VERIFIABILITY policy on self-published sources. Randomran (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no independent reliable sources. Fan forums are not reliable sources. Otto4711 (talk) 21:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: They are if it's the reception from the fans themselves it's sourcing. There is also some new information in Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood, which was made by BioWare who were involved in the development and wrote the story. Making the game a third-party reference since it wasn't done directly by SEGA.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums are not reliable sources for anything, and a video game is a primary source. Try again. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the game is written by someone entirely different it still counts as a primary source? I thought it was only a primary if it came from SEGA.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forum postings are not primary sources, but rather they fall under self-published sources; nonetheless, they are generally not accepted as verifiable. MuZemike (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the game is written by someone entirely different it still counts as a primary source? I thought it was only a primary if it came from SEGA.Fairfieldfencer FFF 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums are not reliable sources for anything, and a video game is a primary source. Try again. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but also favour delete. I for once agree whole-heartedly with TTN's actions. His merge was reasonable given the notability, plot repetion game guide problems, but reverted by certain other editor with who has made cleanup awkward on more than one occassion, who in this instance has utterly failed to assume good faith, instead threatening to tell an admin he knows. Six months has been more than enough time to try to dig up sources and prove notability, and the best that can be presented is "a fan forum to see what fans think of the organisation", which by its very nature automatically fails WP:V, WP:SPS and WP:RS. Forums are rarely reliable sources for anything, and certainly are not in this case. Development and reception information should come from reliable, secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and based on the amount of work actually given to the article after the previous AfD, I'm inclined to believe such sources do not exist.-- Sabre (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:I don't understand the forum thing. If a person wants to know what fans think of a certain character you ask them instead of somebody who only played the game with no real interest in anything but his paycheck.Fairfieldfencer FFF 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Allowing fan response by directly sourcing self-published forums opens too many doors for gaming the system and can become original research. A third-party source that accesses the fan reaction is what is needed to make the fan reaction appropriate for WP. --MASEM 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no editorial oversight on a forum, no established credibility to any of the members, no way of being assured information is accurate, compared to say, magazines and journal articles. It may also be misrepresentative: I've often seen it said that forums only ever account for a small vocal minority of fans. From this perspective, the fans of a game aren't relevant unless something like a magazine or journal article comments on them. Its sort of (crudely) like asking Steven Hawking and Joe the toilet cleaner from Glasgow about their views on life, the universe and everything: Hawking has credibility and would be considered reliable, plus he has coverage in other sources with credibility. Joe, however, is not considerer reliable, and certainly is not considered an expert in the field. -- Sabre (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:I don't understand the forum thing. If a person wants to know what fans think of a certain character you ask them instead of somebody who only played the game with no real interest in anything but his paycheck.Fairfieldfencer FFF 22:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite adequate time given, the article still lacks verification by reliable sources. That aside, the key point is that no reliable sources gave this subject substantial coverage, thus the subject fails general notability. Jappalang (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nobody is expecting this to become a featured article over night. But this has had months and months to find a significant amount of coverage in reliable third-party sources. It's not a lot to ask, and yet none can be found. It's reasonable to conclude that the article inherently fails WP:N (and WP:V too) due to a lack of reliable third-party sources. Randomran (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at the very least Merge. This article is more than able to hold it's own. I honestly think notability can be asserted if you just find the poor bastard who cares enough to look for it. It seems prevalent enough within the series. I don't approve at all of using fan forums to establish merit, however.--Koji† 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of us did care enough to look for it, and concluded it's just not happening. Randomran (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Discuss the merge We have a way of dealing with contested merges--its dispute resolution, not AfD. Whatever I think of the merits of the merge, this is not the place to say it. If a merge is proposed and does not gain consensus, wither accept a loss gracefully--it's inevitable to be overruled some of the time--or take it to the various steps of DR. The remedy is not to delete the article--that's what neither side wanted. If the question is between a merge and separate full articles, and there's no consensus to reduce it from a full article, there should certainly be none to delete it. I can see this extended--if there's a dispute over article contents, just delete it. Actually, at times various pov pushers such as people involved in disputes over ethnical-related articles, not being able to get their own way, have then tried to delete the article, generally with very little success. . Subjects of bios try that also, and have even sometimes succeeded. This is exactly analogous; if one cannot get the material down to the size one wants, delete it. This way, a person in any subject field might get any articles they want merged: threaten to try to delete them and people may lack courage or self-confidence, and feel that even a destructive merge might be preferable. A combination of POINT and OWN and ASK THE OHER PARENT-- in this case, OWNing not an article, but an entire range of topics. "do it my way, or I'll break up the game" DGG (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:I'd just like to point out while the article's original AFD was months ago, no one actually tried to mkae it better.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. Too soon for another nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not like we haven't tried to fix this article's fundamental problem. There are lots of people who cared enough to look for reliable third-party sources, and concluded that there are none. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect/delete/userfy. Enough time has been given to provide proof that this article is worth staying around, but this chance was not taken, likely because it's impossible. If I knew that one of my favorite articles was savable, why would I devote huge amounts of time to complain about not having had enough time and point to unreliable sources, instead of devoting this time to find and present reliable sources to prove the nom wrong? – sgeureka t•c 10:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:GUN a favourite? These guys are the standard badass army that shoot first and ask questions later. No one is likely to be a fan of GUN. Therefore, no one would devote their time to it. I will make it a top priority for the Sonic Task Force to find additional references on this article. I might even start making newsletters to send out to the members.Fairfieldfencer FFF 16:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sonic clutter/cruft at best. No sources show it's notable. Wikipedia simply isn't the guide to everything that Sonic fans "think" is notable. Put on a Sonic wiki (if it's not there already). RobJ1981 (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Users interested in making this article WAF-compliant can have it userfied. Until then, I don't see a need for an article that's about one-half redundant plot summary, one-third blatant violations of WP:VGSCOPE (the "GUN Army" and "Bases" sections) and the remainder exceedingly minor details. Nifboy (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Especially after Fairfieldfencer's comments on the matter here, which effectively resulted in him shooting himself in the foot I'll point out. The article hasn't been improved in some time, and if coverage were to exist it would have been added by now. This article is actually very difficult to read, very much unsourced, and no sources for citations in reliable material seem to be coming up in any searches.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I haven't shot myself in the foot. I'm pointing out that no one cares enough about this article to work on it. Keep the article and I'll have the Sonic Task Force at WikiProject:Sega fix up the article and search for sources.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Aside from the fact that yet another Sonic article has not been worked on for a long time after being identified as significantly poor, notability has not been established; I cannot see this ever establishing notability or having enough independent, reliable sources for verifiability. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep:Seems pretty notable but needs references.Nintendofootball (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have known this needs appropriate references for months. They haven't found any. It's reasonable to conclude it's not notable. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I don't think anybody has actually worked on the article. There hasn't been many edits on it at all. If you work on an article you add information the moment you find it and no edits like that have been made. I say no one has bothered to help the article. If you decide to keep I'll have an entire task force seek out refs.Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- People have known this needs appropriate references for months. They haven't found any. It's reasonable to conclude it's not notable. Randomran (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm using WP:Writing about fiction guidelines. As far as I can tell, the only out-of-universe context the article has to offer is which games the group has appeared in. This can be included in the plot synopsis of those games. GUN itself hasn't been the subject of significant, reliable coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 18:32, 4 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. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GemStones (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable rapper who's friends with a notable rapper. Has appeared on a few of his friend's tracks but no hits. Claims to have "headlined" an MTV show but I can find no verification of that. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable musician. Lacks coverage of third-party reliable source, clearly fails WP:NM. DiverseMentality 18:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. The text of the article is copy/pasted from MySpace (with a few minor alterations). Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Article (and this cite) claim an album is to released this year; other sources back up claim, but say release will be in 2009. Seems reasonably notable. Matt Deres (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album criteria is two albums on a major or important indie, not one. Unless the album comes out and is a hit (which at this point would be crystal ballery), it still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, however he has also performed on two very successful mainstream albums (the Lupe Friasco albums were released by Atlantic; one went gold and the other won a Grammy award). I admit I don't know how integral he was to those albums. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree if he had been on one of the hit singles, but he wasn't. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, however he has also performed on two very successful mainstream albums (the Lupe Friasco albums were released by Atlantic; one went gold and the other won a Grammy award). I admit I don't know how integral he was to those albums. Matt Deres (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The album criteria is two albums on a major or important indie, not one. Unless the album comes out and is a hit (which at this point would be crystal ballery), it still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:58, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishop Gilson levi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotional article. No relevant hits in Google News for "Bishop Gilson". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You know, this really needs an initial cleanup before I can really render good input on it--it looks like such a structural mess, it's hard to tell what is going on. I don't see any notability here, but that doesn't mean it might not exist elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thoroughly promotional in tone, no assertion of notability, the only page written by its creator, and the content is a mess. --Lockley (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: Previously deleted by ProD in May 2008: see [[9]] Springnuts (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as no WP:RS. Springnuts (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Restored Covenant Churches of God is a movement of which I have never read or heard. This makes me think that it is in fact a minor splinter group and hence NN. If that were not the case I would have expected WP to have an article Restored Covenant Churches of God, but there is not. The European head of a NN denomination must also be NN. Even their own website seems thin on detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:35, 4 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 20:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobby Z (monster truck driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bobby Z seems to have been a Monster Truck driver. Overall, he does not seem to meet our notability standards. In Google News hits for "Bobby Z" + monster there seems to be two articles about him (the first two in there). Almost all the sources I see are more or less passing mentions of him (usually just his name in a results sheet). Metros (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete person is not notable. Spidern (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep: The article that Eastmain found shows notability.Schuym1 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added an article from the Birmingham Evening Mail ("What's On: Powerful pooch's 30ft leaps thrill the crowds.(Features)". Birmingham Evening Mail (England). August 18, 2005. Retrieved 2008-11-02.) as a reference. Only a preview is displayed, but the preview is enough to see that there's coverage of him. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that this preview of an article proves notability per WP:BIO. Metros (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know if it shows notability? You can't even read the whole dang thing.Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's easy to know that the full article shows notability because of the first sentences: MONSTER Truck driver Bobby Z has an impressive pedigree when it comes to entertaining the crowds in his vehicle. Monster Mutt, with its floppy tongue and mechanised tongue and tail, has delighted audiences around the world since Bobby began driving it a couple of years ago. Schuym1 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know if it shows notability? You can't even read the whole dang thing.Schuym1 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe that this preview of an article proves notability per WP:BIO. Metros (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One can easily sign up for a free trial to access the Birmingham newspaper to read the full article. I've also added two additional links -- one from the Monster Jam European tour (it is in Czech, but you can easily get an English translation via Google) and one from the U.S. Air Force Recruitment Service, which used Bobby Z in a 2007 promotion (if the U.S. military knows about him and uses him for promotions, I suspect there is some notability). As I stated in the article's Talk Page, the monster truck circuit does not attract the level of mainstream media attention of sports like baseball or basketball, so determining notability is trickier. Within this admittedly niche orbit, it appears he has notability and is fairly well known. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Niche notability is notability none-the-less. Notables in many niches have their cult followings... and monster trucks are no different. The nom may not agree, but that's what an AfD consensus is all about. And Wiki understands very well that Google hits do give notability... they are just indicators of where to look. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of recent improvements, I trust that there is adequate coverage in the sources cited thus far. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 16:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability shown. I have tagged the article for expansion and added a few external links that may be useful toward that end. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:20, 4 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. Protonk (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ice Mountain (water) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not enough notability per WP:CORP. There is some news coverage, for example here, but this a one-time event and the focus of the article is actually Nestle. Tan | 39 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Sources found being vilified along with the evil Republicans and you-know-who, being torched by ELF. MuZemike (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Factual, sourced, and as notable as all the other entries in the "Bottled water brands" category. --Lockley (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sourced? All the article has at the time writing this is just an external link. Bidgee (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is brief, doesn't have any reliable sources, doesn't state it's notability. The first of the above links found by MuZemike is really about the owner of Ice Mountain (Nestlé) and the second is just a very small sentence about a fire about one of it's pumping stations. Maybe the brand itself is better off in the Nestlé article. Bidgee (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
/Merge per reasoningNestle regionalizes their brands of waters within the United States (Ozarka is confined to the Southwest for instance, while Arrowhead Water is sold in the West and Poland Spring is exclusive to the Northeast, etc.), and this brand is Nestle's Midwest brand. Perhaps a new article under a title of Nestle Waters North America with all of the brands and their territories combined into one article may be justified. Nate • (chatter) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Further comment Great job on the extended edits. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added 4 links (some to back up what has been said and some to add new information. Actually this issue has has been more than one event for this company. They have been trying to setup new sources for water all over Michigan and they have not been welcomed anywhere they have gone so far. Googling Ice Mountain controversy has brought back a ton of links. spryde | talk 14:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:38, 4 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 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mixtape Messiah 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two mixtapes that do not appear to pass either general notability guidelines or the specific guidelines of WP:MUSIC. The reviews on MM2 appear to be almost exclusively from non-reliable sources and I find the same sorts of non-reliable sourcing when searching for MM3, mostly download sites it appears. I would have boldly redirected them either to the artist or a discography but I had no doubt that such action would have been reverted by fans. Otto4711 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources for either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto the artist or discography. If the fans revert it, we can revert back. If it continues, someone can protect the redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 19:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Both The mixtapes have received critical coverage, including this review of Mixtape Messiah 3 from the rather reliable source known as The New York Times. These sources and reviews are already in the articles, but are not integrated into the text, and additional sources from Billboard and the Houston Chronicle, among others, are also available to support the claims of notability. The claims of no sources seem to be rather unreliable. Given the ample reliable and verifiable sources, the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepish. And that Times review isn't short either. Can't believe I missed it. The wordsofsouth link doesn't look too reliable. Any other options to use instead for that one? - Mgm|(talk) 00:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Both mixtapes are widely acclaimed, and much too notable for deletion. Lhw1 (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The NYT article demonstrates some notability.--Michig (talk) 08:38, 1 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 Indefinite lifespan. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actuarial escape velocity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not a notable theory or thing that's been mentioned much in books, news or academia. Sticky Parkin 18:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The cited source is a lengthy book review in a peer-reviewed journal, so it is clearly a verifiable, notable theory. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually said article said: "I term this rate of reduction of age-specific mortality risk ‘actuarial escape velocity’ (AEV)" In other words, the author made up the term and it only seems to be backed by two other scientist (according to the article). In other words, I would consider this a science variation of a neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't matter if the theory is supported by 1 scientist or 1000 scientists; if it appears in a peer reviewed journal it cannot be anything other than verifiable and notable. Were this not so, it would simply not have been published. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book reviews are not peer reviewed, regardless of the journal. Basing the verifiability of this "theory" on a single book review does not make it notable. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nearly 1000 Google search results says otherwise. And nobody said anything about book reviews being peer reviewed; the books that are reveiwed in peer-reviewed publications are generally found there because the publisher believes that the subject will be considered relevant and noteworthy by the journal's professional readership - not because that's the ideal place to promote crackpot theories. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A bog standard google search means nothing as anyone can write anything on a blog, sales site etc. Over a thousand really isn't much on a google search. Try google news, books and scholar, which actually list reliable sources, and you will see it's hardly mentioned [10] [11] [12]. One news story mentions it, three essays are written by fans of it that mention it, and no books mention it. Sticky Parkin 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So in other words you've just confirmed that it's verifiable and notable. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You might think that meets WP:NOTE but I don't, not independently of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence if that is what it's part of, or of these life extension theories in general- it's just a small part of them and not a term used outside discussion of them. Sticky Parkin 15:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So in other words you've just confirmed that it's verifiable and notable. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A bog standard google search means nothing as anyone can write anything on a blog, sales site etc. Over a thousand really isn't much on a google search. Try google news, books and scholar, which actually list reliable sources, and you will see it's hardly mentioned [10] [11] [12]. One news story mentions it, three essays are written by fans of it that mention it, and no books mention it. Sticky Parkin 03:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The book review does not show it a notable phrase--just as a catchy title for the review. Publications frequently use allusive titles of this sort, but it does not make them notable. What might be notable is the book being reviewed. this is not the title of that book. DGG (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 03:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Three reliable sources added (New YORK Magazine, Slate, and Boston College Magazine), demonstrating that the phrase is consistently used to identify a well-defined concept. Not sure how this could still fail to meet the criteria. — Swpbτ • c 04:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to
Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. The concept is important to that wing of transhumanism, but this article is covered by WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Indefinite lifespan looks like a better target. And pretty much the whole of Topic outline of life extension and related articles are in need of cleaning. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Our topics are not required to be mentioned "much". Also, the current title is quite arch and the topic is likely to have been discussed using a different form of words. It follows that simple searches are not a good test of muchness. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are required to be discussed, really. At least to have more than four sources in WP:RS that mention them, and most of those probably shallow mentions, and certainly not even the most august sources. If you think there's a more commonly used title, find it.:) Sticky Parkin 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sources don't have to be "august" by anyone's personal standard - they have to meet RS, which all of the sources clearly do. Four is a significant number of independent sources (what number would be good enough for you?), and the mentions in those sources are more than enough to show that the term is "real" and used independently, and is therefore not WP:NEO. And no, there is not any another term for the exact, rather specific meaning "the point at which the rate of increase in life expectancy out-paces the rate of aging." Why on Earth would there be, and why would there need to be? — Swpbτ • c 15:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are required to be discussed, really. At least to have more than four sources in WP:RS that mention them, and most of those probably shallow mentions, and certainly not even the most august sources. If you think there's a more commonly used title, find it.:) Sticky Parkin 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This term does and will play a fundamental role in the coming DeBate about Longevity Rainer Wasserfuhr (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep article based on possible future role- WP:CRYSTAL- that believers think it will have, but base whether it's kept or not on its current lack of use or use. Sticky Parkin 15:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment if User:Eldereft is right and this is part of Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, or some other one of the life extension articles, then I'm happy for it to be merged there, but I bet AEV is never mentioned without reference to the rest of these theories, i.e. it's not independently notable. Sticky Parkin 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More Aubrey De Grey life extension cruft, based on a single entirely hypothetical paper. This is maximally something that could be mentioned as a sideline in life extension or life expectancy. Can't these people use their resources to deal with existing health problems first? JFW | T@lk 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's got no place here. The only question is the notability of the concept, which has been shown. — Swpbτ • c 22:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no hits in PubMed or Web of Science = not a notable scientific concept. Could be defined in Life extension, but doesn't rate an article of its own at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication this concept appears in anything but a primary source and reviews thereof. The term wasn't even coined by the original author but by a reviewer. VG ☎ 19:09, 4 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reason to sing... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sources, still 6 months away. There's no rush. AndrewHowse (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Apparently it's titled which is more than you can say on a lot of these entries. Redirect until it is released. - Mgm|(talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Mac means to the singer's article. Schuym1 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm. The notability of the singer seems to be rather built on that of the record ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Mac means to the singer's article. Schuym1 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-plausible search term, per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. The article author has created several other articles about this individual that have all turned out to be fakes. "Sher'Quan Johnson" results in nine pages, including Wikipedia. So tagged. ... discospinster talk 02:56, 3 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 as vandalism/a hoax page. Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disneymania 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
2010 release, no refs; let's wait until it's sourceable AndrewHowse (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Way too soon here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, especially since the entries on the list of articles are explicitly called rumors. Those have no place here. - Mgm|(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article says itself that it is a rumor. WP:CRYSTAL applies. DARTH PANDAduel 19:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL, lets wait till it comes out or been announced. --Numyht (talk) 20:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this load of rumors and speculation. Anyone else think it might be snowing? Cliff smith talk 23:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Talk about putting eggs in a crystal basket. What if nobody cares about these singers in 2010? Disney wouldn't risk that. Nate • (chatter) 08:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. The article author has created several other articles about Disney-related albums and TV shows that have all turned out to be fakes. So tagged. ... discospinster talk 03:08, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Curtis Wattenbarger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite the interesting story, and the claim of notability, I see no assertion of it meeting wp:creative. The award seems very localized. Google has nothing. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have access right now, but someone should run a newspaper search on this guy. - Mgm|(talk) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick Google news search and nothing popped up. Don't know if it'll turn up in another database, though. Metros (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His accolades seem to be local in nature and do not seem to expand beyond Tacoma's school district. Metros (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His sources include his own website and links to the aforementioned Tacoma school district. While this isn't a blatant WP:A7, I feel it could be possibly treated as such. In any case, fails WP:BIO. DARTH PANDAduel 20:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the award is very minor and local. There is no coverage about him in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 3 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tru-Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable rapper with little media coverage and no hits; has released only mixtapes. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient significant coverage exists for notability.--Michig (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Numerous interviews in magazines and websites, signed by Jay-Z, interaction with Jim Jones makes him known to anyone who listens to Dip Set et al, passes the Google sniff test74.248.89.84 (talk) 05:49, 1 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 Withdrawn Eastmain, you're starting to scare me. :-P Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Malibu Country Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Only good source is the ICSC article. No other reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-sourced, well-written and well-illustrated article about major retail facility in major urban area. Nominator's suggestion that cited sources are unreliable does not appear to be correct. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all of the sources are from the mall's own website. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely Otters, the sources on Malibu Legacy Park Project are also reliable. If this gets deleted, I would urge anyone to save that bit and give it its own article. - Mgm|(talk) 19:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article deleted? Maybe try here? DARTH PANDAduel 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 8 references cited in the article. 4 of them link to the mall's website (which is a perfectly acceptable primary source), and 4 of them link to third party sources. Since when did 50% consititute "almost all" of anything? --Gene_poole (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article deleted? Maybe try here? DARTH PANDAduel 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the ICSC article Tony California Mart Caters to the Stars mentioned by Ten Pound Hammer by itself is enough to demonstrate notability. I added some Los Angeles Times coverage. More coverage is cited on the mall's website. Go to http://www.malibucountrymart.com/ and clink on PRESS. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 1 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Daytona Beach Golf Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is nothing notable about this golf course to warrant inclusion. bigissue (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,
but the History section has to be rewritten-- it is a copyright violation (see http://www.daytonahotels.com/golf/courses.php).[Now done. MW]] Golf is a part of our culture, and an old course designed by a famous course designer is as inherently notable as an old house designed by a notable architect. And I say this as someone who has never played golf, and who is faintly repelled by the golf culture. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. Any public cultural/sporting facility in existence for almost a century inherently meets both WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Longevity does not equal notability. Nor does having a noted person as the designer. The fact is, this golf course has held no tournaments of any merit or had any other impact on history. P.S. The references used seem to be just the club website and another sites that is a direct copy of that content. bigissue (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the longevity this course has, it should be easily possible for Golf enthusiasts to find more sources if some time is given. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Longevity does not equal notability. Nor does having a noted person as the designer. The fact is, this golf course has held no tournaments of any merit or had any other impact on history. P.S. The references used seem to be just the club website and another sites that is a direct copy of that content. bigissue (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Mwanner. I consider buildings, parks and courses designed by notable designers notable. Antonio Gaudi would be a great example to compare with. His buildings are basically notable for existing. No historical events, no tournaments, or anything like that contributed to their notability. Also, based on the size courses usually have, I would also consider it a major landmark. - Mgm|(talk) 19:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable course by notable designer meets the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as factual, sourced, and sufficiently notable. --Lockley (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep what an excellent example of a great article for WIkipdeia!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:43, 4 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. MBisanz talk 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lotus (rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sources are primarily college pages, interviews, the like. Contains a couple vague assertations of notability, but I don't think they quite make it through any criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources as evidenced in the article, plus several album releases on significant enough labels. No reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and there's plenty more coverage not currently cited in the article - see the article's talk page. This article already has a sorry history of editors trying to speedy delete it and prod it while its creator was actively building it up. It's already good enough to stay in my view and can be improved further.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further coverage not currently cited in the article: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].--Michig (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and these (from Google News): [18], [19].--Michig (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you saying? That if these sources were added there would be no reason to delete?--Michig (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not convinced that it should be kept (see Soundvisions comments below), but it sure wouldn't hurt to add what you've found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you saying? That if these sources were added there would be no reason to delete?--Michig (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and these (from Google News): [18], [19].--Michig (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the 15 sources in the actual article, there's also another 16 put up by editors on the talk page and the one's added on this page. Credible, solid sources from industry leading magazines, newspapers, some are college and blogs, but that only a portion. This band was featured on the cover of Pollstar [1] the music industry bible. There is an extreme amount of solid sources for this band in the article. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please see more information about that in my post above. Pollstar is not the "the music industry bible", it is a industry trade magazine that deals with touring. The feature is an extension of tour publicity that is aimed squarely at buyers who are considering who to bring into their venues. Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Based on the interview in Relix it could be a keeper but WP:MUSIC does say "multiple non-trivial published works". Comments: Most of the other items listed fall under the "except" (i.e - do not use for notability) section in WP:MUSIC, Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number one, "except for the following" section. I am also still not 100% on the "short album review" = "Notability of a band" concept. Also here are some links to compare the given citations with - "LOTUS ANNOUNCES THEIR “COPY PASTE REPEAT” TOUR" Press release in PDF format, "Lotus Bio" and "Lotus Current Press releases" all direct from their publicity firm. Doing a search for various phrases contained in them will yield returns of articles, but that does not mean they should be cited to establish "Notability". Concert listings combined with sections of a bio still fall under WP:MUSIC, Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number one. The link given above to "metrosprit" is the press release discussing a local concert date but does mention that "Lotus is currently being featured on the cover of Pollstar – The Concert Hotwire and highlighted as an immerging act to catch on tour". So I went to Pollstar and did a search you got a listing of their tour dates and a Press release with the tour dates, along with several mini links that link back to those sections. I had to dig to find it but it does exist - Lotus but it does not seem to say anywhere that they are an "emerging band to catch on tour". What this is, and it is very important to keep in mind that this is a trade magazine that caters to promoters and live venues, is a combination of interviews with the bands booking agent, their manager, the bands bass player and press releases. Yes it is somewhat "Notable" to have this feature in Pollstar however it contains hype provided people who are not "independent from the musician/ensemble itself". Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the review from Allmusic, and the newspaper articles? It only needs 2 good sources for notability - the others are fine as additional sources.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Overall this question is a two way street. In this case were are talking about a band, not an album. Several reviews of an album may make the album notable, but it does not mean the band is. The reverse, as it relates to this discussion, in in cases of an article on an album existing and there are very few, or no, "non trival" articles on the album and Editors post links to articles on the band to prove notability via the "The album is notable because the band in notable" argument. Currently the guidlines, that are specific to bands, say that the following can not be used : "press releases", "publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves", "advertising for the musician/ensemble", "trivial coverage" (such as "newspaper articles that simply report performance dates" and "contact and booking details in directories"). The bulk of these articles are combinations of tour press releases about an upcoming show or about an album release (or a combination of both as it is a tour in support of an album). If these were articles, and not listings of shows, some would fall under the "school or university newspaper (or similar)" category, which was already addressed in the AfD nomination. A review of an album makes the "subject" of the article the album, not the artist. One of the example citation is to an article titled "Club Notes:Switchfoot rocks for a cause" and I had to look at it a few times because I wondered why it was even cited as it does not mention Lotus. But upon closer inspection, under the part about Switchfoot, there is a mention Lotus. Then I noticed this is not really an article on any one artist - it is actually a section of the paper called "Club Notes" that contains information about upcoming shows in the area. And most of the information reguarding Lotus is not on their live show, but on their "Hammerstrike" album. I am not discounting album reviews or mentions of a bands albums fully but this AfD is an article on a band, not an album. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The allmusic review says a lot about the band, as do several of the other sources. Some of the coverage found does not include in-depth coverage of the band itself, but please concentrate on the better sources, such as the Relix article, the allmusic review, and the Pittsburg Tribune-Review article. To be clear, WP:MUSIC does not state that reviews are not considered valid as significant coverage of the band. If you're suggesting that we could have an article on an album, but not on the band who created that album, that just seems ridiculous.--Michig (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am not "suggesting" anything, just saying what the guidelines are. WP:GNG sets the definitions for all guidlines. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.. WP:MUSIC backs this up by saying, in section one of the "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" : It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. In both case it indicates that the source must address the "subject" of the article, and do so "in detail" (or "non-trivial"). An editor must combine these with the "except" portion. You keep asking about the All Media Guide review. First is the fact that it is a "review". Of what? The first line explains it: "Opening with a peppy two-step acid riff, this debut album..." and it goes on to describe songs, some of which are "towards the house music zone" and "ride a steady thump". The musicians in the band are mentioned, in the context of the review, in comments such as the "minimal guitar pluck of Mike Rempel", "arpeggiated keyboards of Luke Miller" and that "Steve Clemens' drum playing scoots right along with Chuck Morris' electronic percussion...". And there is a track listing. This is an album review, and as such does "address the subject directly in detail". Another way to look at this is that if all band member names were omitted it would still have the exact same impact - the the review does "address the subject directly in detail". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Live performances and recordings are what the band does - they are the whole point of the band existing. Reviews of their recordings are coverage of the band. --Michig (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the review from Allmusic, and the newspaper articles? It only needs 2 good sources for notability - the others are fine as additional sources.--Michig (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Michig, there's plenty of coverage here in notable sources. Fumoses (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could an album by a band be notable but not the band? You could learn about thier albums but not the band? If a band makes a notbable album aren't they therefore notable themselves? Again the band was on the cover of Pollstar, a VERY well respected magazine, as well as many major newspapers, webistes, etc. That's about as notable as it gets. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "Up and coming" maybe but not notable yet. The coverage is mostly hype: trivial, and non-substantial. "[A]bout as notable as it gets" would be something like "Won Grammies and was on the cover of the Rolling Stone, not "on the cover of an advertising rag like Pollstar". --Orange Mike | Talk 05:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have expanded the article with additional sources from Relix, PopMatters, etc. I think it clearly passes based on coverage now - those who previously doubted notability might like to take another look.--Michig (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If winning Grammys and being on the cover of Rolling Stone is all that makes band's notbale beyond the solid, respectable sources listed in Lotus you'd have to take down about 50% of the bands with articles on Wikipedia. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From the WP:MUSIC Page
This page in a nutshell:
- A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations, such as music charts.
- Notability is met if the musician has been the subject of a broadcast by a media network.
Band meets both these requirements and the page lists the sources for each. This goes beyond the numerous solid , respectable sources in print, etc. 67.36.189.236 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The following sources, found in a library database, provide the significant independent coverage needed for WP:N notability requirements:
- DiFonzo, Carla. "Lotus unfolds an eclectic sound at Chameleon", Intelligencer Journal, 2004-01-12.
- Hughes, Korey. "Warm up the sound: Lotus strikes a new position in electronic music", Richmond Times-Dispatch, 2004-03-04, p. D10.
- Clark, Chris. "Power to spare: Lotus mixes electronic and traditional sounds", The Buffalo News, 2004-09-10, p. G17.
- I can add information from these articles (or someone else could too, if they want to look them up). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added them now. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The problem is the articles you have cited have no context, other than providing an inter-wiki link to the newspapers. For example one of your citations was placed next to this statement: "Bassist Jesse Miller and guitarist Luke Miller (born 1979) are twin brothers." There is not a direct quote given from the citation to show context but my question is "How does this fact show the band in notable?" Another citation you provided was to verify this: "Formed at Goshen College in Indiana in 1999..." However this information is also found in other sources, some of which are already cited. The idea is not to keep adding citations that repeat "facts" such as what year the band formed, that the band formed at a college, certain members are related, an album was released or the band does live shows. I provided links to the bands publicist as a way to reference that type of information and to compare it with many of the citations provided. Perhaps the articles Paul Erik provided are the same form of article as they are currently being used to verify facts in the article that do not establish notability of the subject. For a moment visually remove all citations that are from school/college news, (reprinted) press releases about the band, reviews of a CD, information about an upcoming live show that uses a press release, (reprinted) press releases about a tour, (reprinted) press release about a music release, blogs, trivial mentions of the band in larger articles, any article that is not fully independent of the subject, and any other citations that do not provide "Significant coverage" on the band. What is left? That is a starting point. That is what is needed and should be used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can add information from these articles (or someone else could too, if they want to look them up). Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you and I have a different understanding of the notability guideline. My understanding was that the guidelines came about to help establish a neutral way to assess notability. The neutral way to establish that a particular subject is notable is to demonstrate that independent sources have "taken note": "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I've offered three sources that are articles in mainstream newspapers, articles that are entirely about this band. They are not press releases; they are not trivial mentions (meaning something akin to a directory listing). That's enough for WP:N, or, to put it another way, this is enough to pass WP:MUSIC criterion #1. The band does not need some sort of special achievement in addition in order to satisfy the guidelines. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I couldn't agree more - there is ample evidence that this band meets the notability criteria.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What part of WP:GNG's definitions are not clear? I am asking because if there is somehting that is not clear it should be proposed as a change over there.
- Comment: As I mentioned the citations you gave were not used to establish notability, they were used to verify facts that do not aid in establishing notability. Perhaps I was not clear and I apologize. Perhaps if I reworded as an example and ask questions in relationship to your citations, as currently given in the article:
- "Does the fact the band contains brothers, who are also twins born in 1979, establish the subject of the article as notable?"
- "Does the fact the band formed in 1999 establish the subject of the article as notable?"
- "Does the fact the band formed at Goshen College in Indiana establish the subject of the article as notable?"
- If the answer to any of these questions is "Yes" than someone needs to provide citations that show the subject of the article is notable because of these facts and the article cited must go along with the definitions found at WP:GNG and also follow Wikipedia policy concerning sources. Simply saying "Bassist Jesse Miller and guitarist Luke Miller (born 1979) are twin brothers" and citing a source that verifies they are twins who were born in 1979 and are members of Lotus is not enough to establish notability. Also as not everyone reading will have seen the articles you cited so it would be helpful, if an online version can not be found, to provide direct quotes of relevant information that go along with the article statement you are providing a citation for. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A band is notable if "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." It doesn't matter what those works contain. The works about the band only have to exist, they don't have to demonstrate any additional notability beyond the fact that the band has received such coverage.--Michig (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually that is not an entirely true reading. Content is very important in establishing notability, guidlines imply it and if you read footnotes in various policy and guideline articles you will see examples. From WP:GNG: Note number 2 (Very much like Note number 2 at WP:MUSIC) is pretty good at explaining "Self-promotion". Note number 4 says - Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works. and Note number 6 says - Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. If 50 (or 100 for that matter) articles, all about the band's history, existed in "reliable sources" it would not automatically make the band notable if the information was all essentially the same. Many of the cited sources in this article are all based on the same source(s) and outlines of most are 1.history of the band (year formed, where formed, who formed) 2.current album mention (date of release, track listing, small review) 3.where there is a live show (Local date, other dates). Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an entirely true reading as it's taken directly from the relevant guideline, and by definition, "non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" would not fall into any of the categories that you mentioned. Many of the sources in the article go well beyond such trivial mentions, and only 2 are required for mutiple significant coverage, e.g. substantial reviews, features, etc. And I don't think you can discount some of the sources just because part of the article contains information possibly sourced from a press release. If an article is simply reprinting a press release, then yes, it's not a WP:RS. If an article is largely original work but, for example, contains a quote from a band member sourced from a press release as a small part of the article, that's very different.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the multiple sources added, I'm convinced that they now meet WP:MUSIC. Since others have called for deletion, I won't withdraw yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's time to remove the delation tag. This article meets all the requirements above and well beyond.
96.248.139.106 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The tag can't be removed until this deletion is closed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:48, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tara Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find nothing about "Tara Monroe" related to "film" or "actress" or "porn" at Google News Archive. Edison (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you check other sources? The Google News Archive is not the be all and end all for notoriety. I'm concerned about this being the only source used to determine whether anyone should have an article, regardless of whether this particular article passes Wikipedia's exclusionary bar or not. 23skidoo (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Raven1977 (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - AVN and XBIZ (two porn trade journals) search reveals nothing. Google Books reveal trivial mention of her. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom - Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Tatarian (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No WP:IS WP:RS. Tosqueira (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per everyone. The user (and/or socks) who created this and Hayley Finch (which is also in AfD currently) is probably testing our ability to remove junk from Wikipedia. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:20, 5 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 20:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Winter, 2nd Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While there clearly was a George Winter, 1st Baronet, all evidence indicates that the baronetcy started and ended with him. British History Online states "George Winter was created a baronet 29 April 1642, (fn. 38) took the side of the king in the Civil war, (fn. 39) and died without issue on 4 June 1658, when the baronetcy became extinct."[20] There are no google hits for Winter baronets[21] (also not in books or scholar) All sources that counld be found for Robert Winter or Thomas Winter are about the people involved in the Gunpowder Plot, not some later baronets. This smells like a hoax (excluding the not nominated first and only baronet), butif not, it is unverifiable and not notable. Fram (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated:
- I suggest giving Michael Winter (professor)#Ancestry a long hard look. It seems apparent where this is originating. I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that Btdwinter (talk · contribs), Trebarried (talk · contribs), and Worcester1 (talk · contribs) are all one single person.
And, yes, the Transactions of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society, 1889, page 132, state that the "grandson George" was "the first and last baronet of the house". Similary, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Extinct and Dormant Baronetcies of England (John B. Burke, 1838. London: Scott, Webster, and Geary) states, in its entry for "Wintour, of Hoddington", that George Wintour "died without issue, 4th June 1658, when the title became EXTINCT". Wikipedia appears to be being abused for one person's fake claim to noble ancestry. These articles are a hoax, that is entirely contradicted by sources. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also what Worcester1 writes in this edit. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails verifiability, unless reliable sources can be furnished to satisfy the criticisms raised in the nomination by Fram and the additional related criticisms by Uncle G. Edison (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They'd have to be sterling quality sources to contradict the two Burkes. Uncle G (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Impressive research! DARTH PANDAduel 20:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoaxalicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward321 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but Winter Baronets, since a baronetcy was created for George. However, this should be moved to Wintour Baronets, to agree with Burke. Choess (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but Winter Baronets and Michael Winter, Professor. I am a Winter family historian paid for by a distant family. I have been in contact with several members of the family in America who told me everything about the baronetcy which I know with the help of Fram is now extinct and I am sorry for giving wrong information. In regard to Btdwinter, Bradford Winter is the 10 year old son of the family I am in contact with in America and has apparently mucked around on wikipedia a lot so he can not be blamed due to his age. The family in America do not know Prof. Winter but he is a very notable academic and there is a legend that his family is descended from the Winters/Wintours but through an illegitimate line, I have been in contact with him today and he had no idea he was even on wikipedia and has asked that his entry NOT BE DELETED but that the parts about his ancestry to be deleted as he himself agrees that there is not enough research to support his family's claims and he does not wish for them to be there. I am very sorry that I submitted wrong information but I was doing so on the authority of my clients. The page on Sir George Winter and Winter baronets should be continued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worcester1 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-02 17:01:52
- Comment re Uncle G I suggest giving Michael Winter (professor)#Ancestry a long hard look. Definitely: it doesn't appear reliably sourced, and even if true, "a descendant ... of the Plantaganent (sic) Kings" is sheer WP:PEACOCK unless there's some notable high-visibility direct line. I've placed a factual accuracy tag on that section: might want to watch it, as Worcester1 (talk · contribs) removed the hoax tag without fixing the problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:22, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Floristweb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable company. A quick Google Search for Floristweb currently (2008-10-31T14:53Z) returns only two hits. There are no third party sources that reference this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrahamDo (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Google News search also turned up nothing. Unless references can be found, fails WP:CORP. DARTH PANDAduel 20:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:53, 4 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 deleted (G12) as a blatant copyright infringement. - Mgm|(talk) 20:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- African University Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced list of ... I don't know quite what, actually. What, exactly, is being "ranked" is unknown, as are the authorities being cited for the ranking. Speedy declined. Fails WP:V. Ravenswing 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete
A1G12 Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Question Obviously sourced from somewhere--now the question is where. (& whether its a copyvio) Perhaps someone can figure it out in 5 days DGG (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer It looks like a copyvio of this. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:13, 31 October 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 Einstein Family. MBisanz talk 13:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maja Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article makes no assertion of the subject's notability other than her relation to Albert Einstein. Please see relevant AfD discussion of another of Einstein's relatives at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Einstein. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Reading the article gives a strong impression of being a non-notable relative. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability of Albert does not automatically make all his relatives, ancestors, and descendants notable. Redirect or Smerge (selectively merge) to the Albert article. The articles about Alberts's parents and children should also be considered for AFD in separate nominations. Edison (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Clearly this information is well sourced and part of Einstein's life. I'm afraid his article would be too bloated if this was included though. Perhaps we can make a subarticle about his family. It would still be part of the Einstein article, but not bloat its size. - Mgm|(talk) 20:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect this and all the others like it to Einstein Family (and change the capitalisation on that article, too). Grutness...wha? 00:29, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Japanese Jamaican (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unverifiable and title is a neologism. No reliable, non-trivial sources (i.e. more than a population figure) found on searches like "Japanese Jamaicans", "Japanese immigration to Jamaica", "Japanese (living/working/studying) in Jamaica", "Japanese (people/community/students) in Jamaica", 日系ジャマイカ人, etc. Proposed deletion template removed by creator without comment or improvement by a different account than the creator [22]. cab (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG Delete-good hunting! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Edison (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not this again. JuJube (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete when will it end? when will it end?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP -- pending further developments at Talk:Japanese people in the Netherlands#Category framing dispute? --Tenmei (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidering the array of related issues?
[edit]This thread perhaps misconstrues the issues at hand. At first blush, I applied the terms established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese. That article was deleted in due course; and applying similar standards, this one would encounter the same fate.
However, Framing what is relevant becomes crucial.
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs distinguishes between expatriates living outside Japan and those who have non-Japanese nationalities. I'm persuaded that we would do well to be guided by that model.
This article could be re-named Japanese expatriates in Jamaica; and if so, it could be categorized in Category:Japanese expatriates along with:
Japanese people in the Netherlands= Japanese expatriates in the Netherlands?Japanese Guyanans= Japanese expatriates in Guyana?Japanese people in Hong Kong= Japanese expatriates in Hong Kong?- Japanese expatriates in the United States?
However, in my view, this article should not have been encompassed within the context established by Japanese diaspora nor should it be categorized with Nikkei articles like
|
Consequences applied in other articles?
[edit]If the reasoning above makes sense, then it begs the following:
- Japanese people in Hong Kong would need to be renamed Japanese expatriates in Hong Kong; and the article needs to be removed from Template:Japanese diaspora.
- Japanese Hongkongers should be substituted in the context established by Template:Japanese diaspora.
- Japanese Costa Rican needs to be re-named Japanese expatriates in Costa Rica; and the article needs to be removed from Template:Japanese diaspora.
- Japanese people in Russia would need to be re-named something like Japanese Russians in order to avoid further confusion with an as-yet unwritten article about Japanese expatriates in Russia.
- In this context, Japanese people in North Korea remains anomalous, but not appropriate for inclusion in Template:Japanese diaspora.
- Japanese Dutch? -- A new article needs to be created for those Dutch-born citizens of Japanese descent -- as in the case of the progeny of the American-born, octogenarian artist Shinkichi Tajiri, who has lived in the Netherlands for fifty years, marrying two Dutch women and fathering Dutch children and grand-children of Japanese ethnic ancestry. As currently drafted, Japanese people in the Netherlands is unconnected with Demographics of the Netherlands.
As currently drafted, Japanese Jamaican would appear to be unconnected with Demographics of Jamaica ..., but an AfD thread which considers a re-named article about Japanese expatriates in Jamaica may survive a consensus review?
I hope that this attempt to parse the topics will clarify the issues to be evaluated. --Tenmei (talk) 20:52, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Triple Champion Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is completely original research. There is no such thing as a "Triple Champion Club" in boxing. It's a name that's been made up by the author of this article. MKil (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
*Keep but, Rename, I suggest that the article be renamed to "List of Boxing Triple Champions". Tony the Marine (talk) 06:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment, I will rephrase the introduction since the user who created the article is "new" in Wikipedia and I think that we shouldn't discourage him/her. If others agree by consensus to "renaming" the article instead of deleting it, I will be more then happy to do it for the newbie. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Sorry, I just found out that there already is a List of boxing triple champions Tony the Marine (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:56, 4 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) -- the winner and still champ, as notability is confirmed in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Young Tommy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A minor boxer who is not notable MKil (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A boxer with a record of 61 wins from 86 fights, and who fought for a world title is most certainly notable.--Michig (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Michig. Lots of fights including a world title shot. Should be enough to meet WP:ATHLETE.
- Where is the world title shot? I only saw the california state fight.
- Keep, provided that this is passed on to someone with newspaper access. Someone from 1910 is unlikely to be covered online much, but he is almost certainly going to be in the newspaper and we need that because the wiki that is currently being cited is not reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 20:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This search finds plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 1 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 Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:56, 4 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 Closed as moot: page redirected to Religion in Europe. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- European religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable concept added to Wikipedia in the form of a personal essay. Clearly fails WP:N and violates WP:NOR. Of course there were various religions in Europe before Christianity, but this is not a term used to describe the lot of them and the essay posted is original research. PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —PelleSmith (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's also weasel wording and an anonymous reference. - Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very problematic concept unlikely to be widely accepted by scholars. PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Religion in Europe, the same way that African religions redirects to Religion in Africa, &c. I am so firmly convinced that this is the Right Thing to Do that I am likely going to do it in a couple hours unless some strong objection is made quickly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I would have done the same had I known that page existed. Go ahead. - Mgm|(talk) 20:11, 31 October 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. MBisanz talk 13:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008-09 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Based on past AfD discussions, this page is not considered the highest level of hockey, and therefore (according to previously established "rules"), this article should be deleted. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is well-sourced by reliable resources. It is an article about an NCAA Division I hockey team. D-I is the highest level of amateur hockey in the United States. I don't think previous AFDs should have effect on this article that stands on WP:V and WP:N by itself (although it would be useful to see links to the old AFDs). Similar articles exist for NCAA D-I basketball and football teams; see Category:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season and Category:2008-09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. I know that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reason, but OtherStuffDoesn'tExist was a reason given for deletion. I still stand that the article meets WP:N and WP:V. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is well-researched, well-written, extensively sourced, and is an excellent example of the sort of article we should all strive to write. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid justification for deleting anything. --Gene_poole (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well researched? It has less than 10 references, most of which are from stats and news announcements (which even high school athletics post online) and the 9 references given come from only 3 sources. Well researched? Extensively sourced? You must be joking. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 18:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about WP:IDONTLIKEIT as being a valid reason why this article should be deleted? You're missing the whole point of this AfD, Gene Poole. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 18:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no numeric threshold for cited sources at WP. If 9 citations from 3 reliable sources are sufficient to verify the content of an article, then that's all that need to be there. The "whole point" of this AfD is that it lacks one. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lacks what? A reason? Here's just a brief list of arguements in favour of it's deletion:
- Keep Division I hockey is considered by the majority of people and hockey community to be the highest level of amateur hockey. Teams and seasons are notable due to the division I school and athletic programs they are affiliated with, the media coverage DI programs recieve, and to a lesser extent the NHL prospects players on the teams. Some argue that CHL teams and leagues are the highest, the NCAA considers the CHL minor pro, but I would argue that the CHL is also the highest amateur level. Players have a choice from lower Junior leagues to go NCAA or CHL both are seperate and different but I would consider both at the top level. Division I athletics are by far the highest in the US.Bhockey10 (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Djsasso has already argued this, but in case you missed his comment, I'll summarize it for you. He states that the "level" of hockey here is irrelevant. It was already agreed upon that only the highest level of hockey in the world (professional) period should have team season articles. Not the highest level of amateur hockey. "Amateur" is not "professional". This violates the terms we all agreed upon. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:— Where are these discussions? Who decided upon them? For the discussion of THIS article, it meets, WP:V and WP:N and is not a high school team, nor a minor league professional team, nor a NCAA Division III team. It's about a team in one of the "major" college hockey conferences (CCHA). — X96lee15 (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Djsasso is currently in the process of moving, and therefore hasn't been as active as I'm sure he would like to be, and made the comment regarding these past discussions. I'm sure when he gets the time, he will educate all of us about these past discussions that he was referring to. In the mean time, what I was getting at with the high school comment, was that a "well-sourced" article is one thing, but an article with primary sources (in this case, the official Bowling Green website) pertaining to very common news bulletins/announcements, is not considered reliable. Third-party sources are needed in that regard. However, with that being said, that is not the issue being discussed right now. The reason the article is up for deletion is simply because it is not a professional hockey team. Period. That's the reason. I don't know how else to word it to you guys. Wikipedia is not a statistics database is also a notable arguement. I hate to see this article get deleted just as much as you guys, believe me, I've been in your shoes many times before, but it simply all comes down to policy, and the fact that it is not a professional team. I hope I'm making sense. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 21:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't valid reasons. As far as reliable sources, 1) there are others already listed besides bgsufalcons, 2)the first step to unsourced articles is to find them yourself or put a tag up citing the need for them. 3) I can find many third party sources with a click of the mouse which I can have done by tomorrow (busy tonight...) I'm not trying to go against any previous afds, If this was a Jr. B or even Jr. A team I would say delete but since this is a well written article, that uses stats in an organized manner it can be on wikipedia. The Wikipedia is not a statistics database argument pertains to stub-like articles that just list random stats and numbers.Bhockey10 (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Djsasso has already argued this, but in case you missed his comment, I'll summarize it for you. He states that the "level" of hockey here is irrelevant. It was already agreed upon that only the highest level of hockey in the world (professional) period should have team season articles. Not the highest level of amateur hockey. "Amateur" is not "professional". This violates the terms we all agreed upon. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what Djsasso and Resolute's opinions on the matter are. Perhaps everything I've been tought about articles and their deletions by admins from the Ice Hockey WikiProject has been 100% wrong. After all, I'm only going by what they've been saying. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, NCAA is the highest level of amateur hockey in the US. That makes it notable enough for a team article. A season article is a different issue though. Grsz11 →Review! 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:UNDUE is the main issue that this article would be violating. To have this kind of season detail for a team at this level is a case of undue weight and as such also is a case of wikipedia is not a sports almanac or stats database. Its been long established that the highest level of amateur hockey is not league level hockey but international competition of the senior variety as well since level of hockey was mentioned above. -Djsasso (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Djasso and Grsz. The team is notable, but not all of their seasons. While the little prose the article does have is sourced it doesn't translate to notablility; Verifiability does not equal Notability. Guidelines for teams and player's notabilities seem pretty well structured, perhaps a discussion should take place concerning seasons, etc. but until then it's a delete. Blackngold29 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a nonexistant List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons. LegoKontribsTalkM 00:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Hucz (talk · contribs) 04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why in the world do you just leave a commentless delete on your own nom? AfD isn't a voting contest, it's a forum for discussion. I'm fairly new to the process and I know that. Besides, unless you change your mind on wanting the article deleted, why the heck would you "vote" anyway, as it's obvious by your comments and your nomination what you feel.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't lecture me, I am well aware of what an AfD is and isn't. I wasn't "voting", I was saving the admin's time of reading all my posts to figure what my stance was, and simply saying "Delete" is summarizing my opinion based on my previous posts. When an admin desides whether or not to keep this article, he can skim over the bold words, and make his decision based on that. Your comment has no affiliation with this ongoing discussion, and ironically, your lecturing me. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 01:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not up for a war of words so this will be my final comment, I'm not lecturing you, I by no means am in a position to do so, you just seem overly anxious to do what it takes to see this article deleted... but I do have to make the obligatory mention of your statement "I wasn't 'voting'..." and put it beside your other statement "...[the admin] can skim over the bold words, and make his decision based on that" - sounds an aweful lot to me like you think the admin would make it a vote... Anywho, I'm done. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, leaving my comment at just Delete is allowed, according to Wikipedia policy. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands and read the part about leaving a Delete comment. I would prefer from now on that you don't criticize me with inaccurate information. I knew exactly what I was doing. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 08:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My response to this and your message on my talk page is on your talk page. This is no place for this discussion. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Especially if someone starts doing some research and writing naratives on this and past seasons. A list of season records and standings is nothing more than a stat collection, but some actual information in the form of detailed numbers and narrative overviews can be very interesting, and seeing as this is D1 hockey, it certainly is notable. D1 college football seasons are notable, why not D1 hockey? It is one of the 4 major sports in the US.Coastalsteve984 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NCAA Division I articles are considered notable for other sports. I fail to recognize why hockey thinks that as a project it should be able to set different standards. matt91486 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DI football is the highest amateur level of football. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anyone and anything can become notable simply by enough coverage from reliable sources, which this has. How can this fail notability? If some project or another should decide that amateur hockey team seasons shouldn't get their own article, that's a question of merging, not of deletion. Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anyone and anything can become notable simply by enough coverage from reliable sources," is an inaccurate analogy of Wikipedia's General notability guideline (Presumed section). — Hucz (talk · contribs) 03:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not going to side on this AfD as I would be fine with either outcome. So I'll instead point out a few things. NCAA football and basketball are much more notable than DI ice hockey. Essentially, DI FBS football is on par with the NFL in terms of coverage from game one until the FBS Championship game. The NFL relies almost solely on college players at the Draft. I think it's pretty obvious that NCAA DI FBS football season articles are good to go. Basketball, although not quite as "on par" with the NBA as FBS is to the NFL, is still hugely notable. The NBA isn't quite as reliant on college players, but still at least 75-80% come from NCAA schools. Moving to hockey, and you run into much less notability. The NHL does not rely on college players, although they do get a good chunk. Just look at player proflies for the NFL, NBA, and NHL. The NFL and NBA always state the college from which the player came from. In the NHL there is no significance to this as the league is so diverse (with players coming from very many leagues). Look at championships as well, the FBS receives massive airtime with almost all games covered by a major outlet, same with March Madness. As for DI hockey, I can honestly say I've never seen a Frozen Four game unfortunately. – Nurmsook! talk... 17:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you haven't seen a Frozen Four game, you're missing out! Early round games are on ESPNU (sometimes ESPN Classic. The Final Series and I think semi finial series are on ESPN. Also college hockey games are on ESPNU and CLassic all season long, and on Fox College Sports channels, CSTV, and now the CCHA (including BGSU) is on the NHL Network.--Bhockey10 (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I mean though. They only broadcast college hockey games on ESPNU or conference TV networks, whereas you can watch football games every weekend and the bowl series on the major American networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or ESPN, and March Madness on CBS. I don't think ESPNU or other college TV networks are as widespread as the big 4+ESPN. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In certain places the Frozen Four is considered almost as important, though. Certainly not as universally, but in the northern half of the country, especially east of the Mississippi, college hockey is quite important. matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I mean though. They only broadcast college hockey games on ESPNU or conference TV networks, whereas you can watch football games every weekend and the bowl series on the major American networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, or ESPN, and March Madness on CBS. I don't think ESPNU or other college TV networks are as widespread as the big 4+ESPN. – Nurmsook! talk... 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep aside from WP:ATHLETE which this article obviously meets by being the highest level of the amateur sport, there is enough significant coverage to warrant an article on its own outside of WP:ATHLETE. Notable. Verifiable. Worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:ATHLETE? That's strictly for athlete biographies, not team season articles for every year. Can you define "worthwhile" in a neutral point of view, that would benefit Wikipedia? Seems a lot like WP:ILIKEIT, which doesn't qualify as an arguement, and has no place in deletion discussions. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ATHLETE has been roughly used in a wider range of sports articles besides player bios. In general it's a good measure for sports articles, especially for those who's notability may come into question.--Bhockey10 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with this one, WP:ATHLETE consists of two lines, both beginning with "Competitors" as in people. I see no evidence that it goes beyond the inclusion of people. Blackngold29 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it's been established time and again that college players do not meet WP:ATHLETE, as they have not competed at the highest level of amateur hockey or professional hockey. So if WP:ATHLETE is to be used as a guideline, then it's clearly not notable. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment okay, fine... if you want, it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE--but my original comment still stands--Notable. Verifiable. Worthwhile.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, it's been established time and again that college players do not meet WP:ATHLETE, as they have not competed at the highest level of amateur hockey or professional hockey. So if WP:ATHLETE is to be used as a guideline, then it's clearly not notable. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree with this one, WP:ATHLETE consists of two lines, both beginning with "Competitors" as in people. I see no evidence that it goes beyond the inclusion of people. Blackngold29 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this article seems to fall into "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". — Hucz (talk · contribs) 02:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, the majority of it's article is not "readable prose" according to WP:SIZE. Even organized tables, templates, links, references, statistics, etc. is not considered "readable". It is suggested that articles should contain a majority of "body text", with a minority non-readable prose. In this case, it's the complete other way around. This directly violates Wikipedia policy. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 02:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that this discussion is beginning to wind down to its conclusion (hopefully). According to the deletion process and resolution, Wikipedia recommends a truce between both parties. So, what I am getting at is that we should look at (previously mentioned) merging of the article into a future "List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons". — Hucz (talk · contribs) 00:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The article stands on its own. — X96lee15 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have clearly listed and thoroughly explained each policy this article is violating. It seems as if there will not be a clear consensus or end to this discussion that everyone will agree with, therefore according to Wikipedia, a truce is in order. If you disagree with this policy, X96lee15, then I suggest you read into Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm trying to reason with the opposing party, something you clearly have no interest in doing. How do you suggest this gets resolved then? Don't suggest keeping the article as a resolution, we've already been there before. Something that we can all agree with, and learn/move forward from. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with X96lee15. Moving the article to List of Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey seasons is illlogical. Either keep the article as it is, or merge into the article Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey under a new section called Current Season.Bhockey10 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of you even remotely reading what I post? We have to come to an agreement in order to end this discussion. That's the whole point of having a discussion in the first place. To share our opinions based on notable arguements. Not one-liners saying "keep, it's notable, worthwhile, blah blah blah". That's just opinion going by WP:ILIKEIT. "Keeping the article as it is" is not an option here. I don't know how else to explain this to you. I can just as easily take my stance as "delete" and argue to death why it should be deleted, but I choose to act like the only adult around here (at the age of 18 for Pete's sake), and compromise with all of you. If you're not going to meet me in the middle, then seriously start coming up with actual reasons this article should stand on it own, and explain them as best as you can. So far all I'm getting is something about WP:ATHLETE, and WP:ILIKEIT; which are not reasons to keep this article. Be bold, post some actual evidence based on Wiki policy why this article should stand on its own, or work with me at negotiating a truce. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, for claiming that you're the only one acting like an adult, your previous comment wasn't very WP:CIVIL. "Keeping the article as it is" is a very reasonable conclusion to this AFD. First, the argument for deleting this article was, "this article should be deleted because of previously established rules". Nobody has linked to where these rules are or what these "rules" are. I looked around WP:HOCKEY and could not find anything. Sounds to me like they were "made up" once one hockey season article was deleted. However, as I've stated before, this article, on its own, is notable and verifiable. Sure it could be cleaned up a little bit, but in no way should it be deleted. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The momment you prioritize this AfD over picking apart my posts, will be the momment this discussion will get resolved. I've tried my best at resolving this AfD. I'm not going to even bother talking to you anymore, until you realize what's more important here: picking apart others' posts, or resolving this AfD. Until then, don't expect to be treated like an adult from me. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 01:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Djsasso. We delete junior hockey seasons, which are more notable than college hockey seasons. College hockey is not the highest level of amateur hockey. We delete college players and junior players. Unless you win a national championship, there's nothing notable here. Of course, after someone argued in depth to keep a peewee hockey team last week, I'm not sure anything surprises me at this point. --Smashvilletalk 14:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- College is the highest level, the goal of Jr. hockey is to develop players for a move up to college level and pro levels.Bhockey10 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Various things here. WP:Ice Hockey has established time and again that the highest amateur level of hockey is senior level international competition. Also, junior hockey is absolutely not a feeder to college, as outside of the USHL they are ineligible to compete in the NCAA. Junior hockey is a higher level of hockey than college and we do not consider their seasons notable. Therefore, we would not consider a lower level team's season notable. --Smashvilletalk 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know nothing about hockey? Jr. Hockey is a feeder for college hockey, 90-95% of players go through Jr. Hockey before playing college hockey. Only the three major junior leagues are ineligible b/c the NCAA considers the CHL teams/leagues minor pro.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Civil much? Or do you want to keep calling me dumb because of semantics? I think it's fairly obvious that I was referring to major/Tier I junior, considering my reference to the USHL... --Smashvilletalk 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification for the closing admin, comparing a NCAA Division I hockey season to a pee-wee hockey season is hyperbole. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was assuming the closing admin wouldn't be a moron. --Smashvilletalk 20:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How about some precedence for deletion? Here and here (with virtually the same keep arguments). --Smashvilletalk 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those examples aren't very similar to this afd. But I think we at WP:Ice Hockey need to have serious discussion about including Major Jr. and DI college hockey into the highest level of amateur hockey. Especially because outside of the Olympics, International play doesn't get much exposure, where DI hockey and Major Jr. get vast exposure season after season.--Bhockey10 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, so let's look realistically at what you're suggesting. Luckily I liked learning in Math class. 60 teams play out of the Canadian Hockey League, while 12 teams play out of Division I. That's 72 teams, each with their own independant season article for every season. That's 216 season articles in just three years from now. That to me, is not worth noting. I mean, what on Earth are you going to fill those 216 articles with, that would possibly benefit Wikipedia? It seems to me like this is all for personal gain. I can't even remember hearing of anyone on this Wiki who had enough time on their hands to navigate the past 100 years of Montreal Canadiens seasons. With that being said, that's just one team out of the League's 30. Now what you're suggesting is that 72 teams now deserve their own seperate articles for every season with "worthwhile information" that will meet quality standards. Good luck with that. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 01:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ok I do see your point. If this article can't be on it's own I would support a Merge into the existing article Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey under a new section called Current Season. If the Major Jr and NCAA DI teams are allowed seperate articles I would suggest a guideline to rename and then redo the season article every season- i.e. next season this article would be renamed 2009-10 Bowling Green Falcons men's ice hockey season that way there would just be those 72 articles(haven't done the math but it sounds correct).Bhockey10 (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, now we're getting somewhere! I liked your first suggestion, merging it into the team's article. In due time, when the team article becomes overly bulky, all we would have to do is summarize their seasons into a "History" section, then add a Main article: tag and link to a "History of the... (1999–??)" or something similar. Also, an alternative would be to have collapsible tables of thier standings or whatever takes up space, and have a "Bowling Green Falcons ice hockey seasons" article. Within that, everything can be summarized, sourced, wikified, and THAT would definetly stand as an acceptable article. I think a move/merge is a great compromise. — Hucz (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah...consider the fact that we can't even get enough people to handle all of the NHL season articles...--Smashvilletalk 03:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are good points, especially Hucz's about the sheer number of articles that if they are even created will doubtfully get beyond a stub. There are hundreds of NHL season articles that are still yet to be created; there is one out of multiple hundreds that is a GA. There are quite a few people who have voted keep, I would be interested in seeing how many are directly involved in the upkeep of like articles (everyone is obviously entitled to voting, but just saying). As I said originally, I think we need to establish a policy about season articles; how would we go about this? Blackngold29 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, (User:Hucz) ideas are good too! I think this is a good situation for a Merge, I definately don't want to see what is usable info and fairly organized statistics go to waste, I think merging is best. I'm no expert on merging articles yet so if someone else can do it, that would be a big help!--Bhockey10 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although every situation is different, in future season article cases similar to this one we should look into merger first before deleting, myself (and I'm sure many who argued keep) would have voted for a merger if a merge tag was placed instead of an afd --Bhockey10 (talk) 04:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, however, this merger idea is not how I currently feel. It's just the best option at resolving this dispute that everyone can find some agreement with. Don't get me wrong, though. This will act as a good building-off-of guide for future reference when needed. Until then, you can most likely expect (from me at least) that an AfD won't be placed on future amateur hockey season articles (if they for whatever reason are created, which I am really hoping otherwise). In the near future, a similar discussion to this will take place on the WikiProject Ice Hockey discussion page (if nescessary). — Hucz (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - season articles are fine for the highest level of teams. Since ice hockey is played professionally there is no case for a season article on an amateur team. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should standards be different for hockey than basketball or football? matt91486 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They shouldn't be. I can't speak for football (American) but in football (Association) only teams in fully professional leagues get season pages and that should be the same for all sports with a professional level. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I would support the elimination of non-pro sports teams (ie college football and basketball) however, one reason that was stated earlier was the college football and basketball are far more mainstream than hockey, and thus recieve more coverage. The March Madness tournament is as popular as anything in US sports, however the college hockey playoffs are rarely (if ever) mentioned on sports shows. Blackngold29 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't base this on ESPN. ESPN barely even talks about the NHL now that they don't broadcast it. In northern parts of the US, the Frozen Four is an incredibly big deal still, and receives substantial media coverage. matt91486 (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, association football in Europe is set-up in a completely unrelated fashion to college sports in the US, so I don't think it's a valid comparison at all. We hit that argument every time American college soccer MLS draftee articles are written in the Spring. It's a completely different world. matt91486 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, While basketball is very popular in some regions of the US, in Northern regions hockey is very popular.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not dedicated to regionalism. Clearly DI ice hockey is a big deal in certain areas, but outside of those, it's completely not notable. I made the point earlier that football and basketball were clearly notable, as even up here in Canada we get full coverage of regular season games (usually just football) and championships. Like I said, I've never seen anything to do with college ice hockey aside from who won the Hobey Baker and which team won the Frozen Four, and this is an ice hockey crazy country. You would think if it were so notable, some TV network would try to pick up national airtime rights. Wikipedia articles should be notable no matter where you go, not just in Ohio. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to argue about how wrong you are...It's already been established that Division I sports and hockey are notable. Long Story Short:ESPN is lacking on coverage of any Hockey as the old leaders of ESPN were not hockey fans.with some new leaders at ESPN, the company is looking to bringing the NHL back to ESPN and increased college coverage should be back too... Right now: Canada may not see all the games on regional sport networks such as FSN and Comcast. The NHL Network just signed a deal with the CCHA to broadcast games in the US and Canada. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am NOT saying DI hockey is not notable. I'm saying that season articles of DI hockey ARE NOT notable, while DI basketball (borderline) and football (completely) articles ARE. Look at all my points made so far, nowhere have I specifically said Keep or Delete. Just saying what needs to be said. Also, I would appreciate you not questioning my knowledge in the field of sport (I am involved in it as a profession, BTW), but if you do have an issue with it, please simply take it to my talk page, not here. – Nurmsook! talk... 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your previous comment didn't clarify you were talking about season articles, In that case I agree that season articles are acceptable for DI football. I think for the less high profile (yet notable) sports, hockey and basketball season articles should not be used. That's why I support a merge to the main article on BG hockey. Hopefully in the future we can get some consensus for amateur season article. However, I would support season articles for championship teams in NCAA DI hockey and/or basketball.(BTW I'm also involved in the sport industry.)Bhockey10 (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am NOT saying DI hockey is not notable. I'm saying that season articles of DI hockey ARE NOT notable, while DI basketball (borderline) and football (completely) articles ARE. Look at all my points made so far, nowhere have I specifically said Keep or Delete. Just saying what needs to be said. Also, I would appreciate you not questioning my knowledge in the field of sport (I am involved in it as a profession, BTW), but if you do have an issue with it, please simply take it to my talk page, not here. – Nurmsook! talk... 04:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, While basketball is very popular in some regions of the US, in Northern regions hockey is very popular.--Bhockey10 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I would support the elimination of non-pro sports teams (ie college football and basketball) however, one reason that was stated earlier was the college football and basketball are far more mainstream than hockey, and thus recieve more coverage. The March Madness tournament is as popular as anything in US sports, however the college hockey playoffs are rarely (if ever) mentioned on sports shows. Blackngold29 23:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They shouldn't be. I can't speak for football (American) but in football (Association) only teams in fully professional leagues get season pages and that should be the same for all sports with a professional level. TerriersFan (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should standards be different for hockey than basketball or football? matt91486 (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The debate here is not whether the team or its players are notable but whether the seasons in its history are notable. I do not believe that there is any demand for an article of this ilk outside of the NCAA fraternity, and so the notability of this article should be questioned. – PeeJay 02:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm honestly not sure what your rationale for deletion is here. Just because the "demand" for an article might be low, doesn't mean that the "supply" cannot be present. Not all articles are required to be frequent search terms. matt91486 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:32, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cassius Verus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. This article has only been edited by anonymous editors and offers no real evidence of notability. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Exists (see his site), yet clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Also, as the tags on the page say, it seems like WP:SPAM as well. DARTH PANDAduel 01:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Of course he doesn't pass WP:MUSIC: he's a visual artist. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Regardless of personal opinion, C.Verus is considered a reputable sculpture and installation artists. He was a part of the "minimal world" show with R.Serra at the Guggenheim a few years back and did the Chanel Arts tour with Zaha Hadid last year. Not a fan of his work...but it doesn't remove his significance. The artical is obviously poorly referenced and quite vague. I would motion to "re-write" the artical with proper justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.Dumas (talk • contribs) 09:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't fit the WP:BIO requirements. I tried looking up info on him and there's little to nothing on the web. -- Atamachat 21:24, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of places by name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This looks like an useless list ambitious to cover all places listed alphabetically.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, all associated pages like List of places by name: A should be deleted.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Indiscriminant list. Not encyclopedic to give a jumbled list. Should be sorted by country. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Listing things alphabetically is what categories are for. I'm not even sure sorting by country would help, still category territory. - Mgm|(talk) 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Taking a look at the subpages, this list is so far from complete as to be entirely useless. And, as MGM mentions, there are plenty of more specific categories for this sort of thing (generally of the form "List of X in Y"). Zetawoof(ζ) 18:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. This is an example of the type of indiscriminate list that makes all lists subject to scrutiny on Wikipedia. I feel badly for what is obviously a lot of work, but I'm sorry -- there's no rhyme or reason here, and probably fails about a half-dozen WP:NOTs including "Not an indiscriminate etc etc", "Not a directory" ... 23skidoo (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - without any coherence to the definition of a place, these lists cannot be anything but unusable. For example, the 'W' list contains Wellington (a city in New Zealand, but not any of the other towns and cities), Wellington Street (a disambiguation list of streets) and West Bengal (a state). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - 23Skidoo says it all. This is as indiscriminate as an accumulation of information can get. Reyk YO! 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all LOLWUT? JBsupreme (talk) 06:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nuke all from orbit It's the only way to be sure. How could something like this (1) be considered a good idea, and (2) have stayed hee so long? JuJube (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete lest someone also start to make a list of names by place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:01, 4 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mary Rose School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This School Is Not Notable Enough. There is Over 180 diffrent "sports colleges" and many schools for special needs through out the world. Also the Section on Uniform's Realy Spells out the Purpose of this Article. Its Not Ment to Be Encyclopedic. CelesJalee (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. Meets WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:NOTE? Michellecrisp (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - contains a high school and there are sufficient sources available, though not in the page, to meet WP:N including controversy over delays in its opening. This school was independently assessed to have an outstanding sixth form and is the only special school, as far as I am aware, to either be a specialist sports college or to have an outstanding sixth form. Such pages should be expanded and not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are adequate independent, reliable sources to write a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aren't secondary schools usually held to be notable if enough reliable sources can be found to write an article? Random89 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's certainly the consensus that's evolved over the past half decade. --Gene_poole (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above and beyond the strong consensus and precedent regarding the notability of secondary schools, the reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article does not have a section on uniforms and so must now be encyclopedic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep it looks to me like this is a high school, which we normally keep--but even if it isn't, there are some good sources for this short artilce and it still would be a keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:31, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Testing reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research/essay; not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's rather a formless essay. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a term paper repository. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR, anybody? DARTH PANDAduel 22:13, 3 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 due to copyvio. Article can be recreated but should address concerns of notability and reliable sourcing. -- Banjeboi 16:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Philip Dobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person. CSD A7 was declined because he is a Justice of the Peace, however being one of 30,000 UK local magistrates does not appear to meet WP:Notability, and rest of article is thinly veiled advertising. Eve Hall (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article doesn't show he is notable. Dekisugi (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a vanity article to me. Also agree about the advertising and notability problems. [Phlyght] 13:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being a Magistrate by itself does not equal notabality, I'm somewhat surprised the A7 was declined because I don't see a valid assertion of notability passing WP:BIO anywhere in this article. Shameless vanity page. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since Justice of the Peace is an appointed position, I compared it with an appointed major or appointed chairperson (which are politically and academically notable respectively according to their guidelines). If the nominator can explain how he comes from Justice to one of 30,000+ Magistrates, I might well change my mind. - Mgm|(talk) 20:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For information of Mgm,'Justice of the Peace' and 'magistrate' are, to all practical purposes, synonymous - it is a judicial post in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. However, there are 30,000 of them (myself included) and being a JP/magistrate is not, in itself, notable. BUT, this detail is a minor addition to the subject's article which is mostly concerned with his medical career, the notability of which I am not in a position to comment upon,, but which should be the central issue of this debate. Emeraude (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Justice of the Peace is synonymous with magistrate in the UK system, and I got the 30,000 figure from our own article here. I commented on his notability as a mag, because that was the reason given for declining the A7. But I certainly don't think there's evidence of notability on the grounds of the medical stuff. Eve Hall (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For information of Mgm,'Justice of the Peace' and 'magistrate' are, to all practical purposes, synonymous - it is a judicial post in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. However, there are 30,000 of them (myself included) and being a JP/magistrate is not, in itself, notable. BUT, this detail is a minor addition to the subject's article which is mostly concerned with his medical career, the notability of which I am not in a position to comment upon,, but which should be the central issue of this debate. Emeraude (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleaned up a bit then in researching found this to be a copyvio and tagged as such. This surgeon may be still be notable but his website is crap and notability will have to sussed out better so the rest of us can see it to. The Justice of the peace bit in the nom is a red herring, I don't think many will seriously consider that as the source of any notability, His establishing methods and institutions or his somewhat unique work may. -- Banjeboi 10:34, 1 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 per G7, requested by creator. Non admin close.. ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gautam Bose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable individual - fails WP:BIO. "References" do not support notability. ukexpat (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has now requested deletion (see my talk page), so nominated per G7. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Smacks strongly of self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 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 After Colony. MBisanz talk 13:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of After Colony technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Original research based entirely on plot summaries. No evidence of notability via coverage by reliable sources that is independent of the series or its producers. Fails WP:FICT. IP disputed prod without giving a reason. --Farix (Talk) 12:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to After Colony. Not deserving of its own page, but there's some material on there that's important to the series, so it should be kept somewhere.kuwabaratheman (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After Colony is more of an overview of the various Mobile Suit Gundam Wing spin-off and followup releases and has a merge proposal to merge or redirect it into the parent article. The technology article wouldn't fit into either articles. --Farix (Talk) 01:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have no idea how to get a hold of the sources for these, and they are far less notable than the UC or CE technology since the series only contains one TV series and one OVA/movie with a few short manga. The technology is also almost totally irrelevant to the story, maybe the Gundanium alloy part can be mentioned in the List of Mobile suit or the main article, but not as a separate article. MythSearchertalk 09:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to After Colony, since it can serve as a universe overview. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 10:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a 'Gundam Wing Technical Manual' around that could be used as a source. It was published, and in English even. Jtrainor (talk) 06:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am talking about secondary sources that support its notability, not where the information came from, as I recall, a lot could be even found in the gundamofficial.com site. MythSearchertalk 14:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Come on people a lot of work went into this and its highly useful. A lot of terms redirect here and its going to leave a hole if taken away. If a List of Problems Solved by MacGuyver can be praised as one of the wonderful things about Wikipedia surely one shouldn't discriminate against other genres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmovik (talk • contribs) 18:09, November 2, 2008 (UTC)
- Comment WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article nor does it trump core policies, such as Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which this article fails both. This article also fails WP:NOT#PLOT, another policy, and has not received any coverage from reliable sources that is independent of the series or its producers and publishers (WP:NOTE). --Farix (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rewrite: Actually all it really needs is to be rewritten since, a. The Gundamiam bit is the real problem on the article since it is more with theories and was not originally meant to be part of the article. b. the other three parts just need to be reduced a bit to remove excessive plots and I already know that Episodes 19-26, 44, and 45 are examples of episodes where accurate details can be found to prove this verifibility and though it may no longer be possible the tech stuff from the old DVD releases. c. even if this page is deleted it won't be a total loss because Gundam wiki has them and that wikia is good alternate for deletion since it is a good way to kill some of the fanboy protests. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not helping in any sense. I have tried to protect various Gundam related articles, but this one is really not that notable. The W series does not focus a lot on the technology like the UC, CE and AD series, which got a lot of plot time discussing them. These technologies can easily by merged to the main article and the mobile units article without any problem(and actually most of the info are already there). MythSearchertalk 08:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:04, 4 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) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disseminating pornography to a minor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom. I deleted this as an uncontested prod, but the author has requested it be restored. I personally don't think the article as it currently stands is viable (although it is a viable topic), as it consists solely of an unreferenced and inappropriate dictionary definition and an unrelated paragraph about movie classification in the UK. – iridescent 12:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep. The offense of providing pornography to a minor is a statutory offense under multiple jurisdictions in the English speaking world. Since there are multiple jurisdictions, there are going to be many variations in the wording and name of the crime. For instance, in Indiana, it's IC 35-49-3-3, "Dissemination of matter or conducting performance harmful to minors". (The glib assumption that pornography is "harmful" annoys, dinnit?) At any rate, all of these similar statutes deserve an article, and there probably ought to be one that covers them all. There may well be a merger candidate out there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because no valid grounds for deletion are cited. The criticisms given by nom are grounds to improve the article, not delete it.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not sure about the title, but there's the seed of a fascinating (and important) article here on the general phenomenon of laws which prohibit dissemination of media in general to minors - not just pornography. I am not a legal scholar and thus don't have much to contribute, but I'm sure there are others who could add on to this. Zetawoof(ζ) 18:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as per Risker below . agree the title is ungainly, but the subject matter is certainly notable.
can'tt hink of any obvious merge candidates,though I would be open to one if someone came up with a good plan, but I do think there is enough verifiable information out there to make a substantial article. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Merge into List of pornography laws by country. Separate article is not required; in fact, the material is already largely covered in the latter article, and more completely. Risker (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Pornography in the United States could be a viable target. PhilKnight (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - unsourced, appears to be not notable. If the keep voters consider this is a notable subject, they should have no difficulty in adding multiple citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 1 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 02:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Driver's Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A game that never left testing stages. Unfortunately CSD A7 doesn't apply to software. Delete. Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete according to the article, it is not-notable and never released beyond a small test. DoubleBlue (Talk) 11:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wish they'd expand A7 to cover software and films. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't. A7 gets abused a lot already for cases of WP:IDONTLIKE. If it gets expanded we lose too much viable solid material. _ Mgm|(talk) 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is neither a crystal ball nor an indiscriminate information repository. No significant coverage by reliable sources makes this game non-notable per WP:GNG. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 31 October 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 02:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revenge Is Sweeter Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
future tour sourced only by tour announcements. contested prod. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:EVENT until the tour is a proven success. WWGB (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not at all notable in isolation from the band, who've conducted many tours in the past. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:06, 4 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 02:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the spotlight theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is a proposed speedy that I declined, but brought here for further consideration. The article asserts notability, but doesn't demonstrate it with sources, and a quick search didn't show any promising leads. Procedural nomination, no opinion either way. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 10:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Google returns 26 hits.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The original input was correct -- zero notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 4 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Metabolic Oncolytic Regimne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Was tagged as speedy, but I disagree about the entry being promotional beyond recovery. I am however unsure if this is a topic that should have an article. If kept the typo should be cleaned up. Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research promoting a fringe medical theory. Somebody's snake oil about a diet that cures cancer. If kept, it should be moved to metabolic oncolytic regimen. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable enough even as an "alternative treatment". Only one Google Books or Scholar hit apparently independent of the proponents. --Itub (talk) 07:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there has been not notice taken of this as evidenced by google scholar and book searches. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another attempt at curing cancer through the Warburg effect. Not in widespread use, no indications that this theory is particularly notable. JFW | T@lk 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As above, a hodgepodge of original synthesis and poorly sourced/unsourced BS. Red flags: it cites the Townsend Letter, Medical Hypotheses and a patent application. That's a trifecta. MastCell Talk 04:02, 4 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 Interstate 405 (California). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- San Diego Freeway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is entirely covered in Interstate 405 (California) and Interstate 5 (California), 75% is lists - against WP policies, 25% is a poorly written route description and history. Rschen7754 (T C) 07:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant to I-405 and I-5. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per above. ThePointblank (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Interstate 405 (California), with a disambiguation link at the top for I-5. Everything worth keeping is already in the I-405 article, so there's nothing to merge. --NE2 10:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, yeah, this is totally redundant. CL — 12:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2. Outright deletion is not necessary since this is a likely search term. --Polaron | Talk 13:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2, Polaron to avoid future creation of a new article as suggested by a post-deletion search results page. Sswonk (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Possibly WP:SALT to prevent future recreation. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2, don't delete, to preserve the history, but protect from being changed back into an article. Expected search term. 23skidoo (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per reasons above. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 20:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2, Polaron - alternate name for a freeway (add dab note on top of the page) — master sonT - C 22:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Outright and literally delete is unneccessairly. But this page have to either subpont to I-405 (CA) or turn/convert into disab page. San Diego Fwy is a official highway take full part of I-405 and becoems an I-5 in Orange County.--FRWY 22:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2. However I fail to see how this article is different from Hollywood Freeway, Ventura Freeway amongst many others. Where is the line drawn? Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads Dave (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps there is no line and these should be made redirects, too. However isn't the Ventura Freeway just that - no number? Hollywood Freeway I think is Highway 101 so it could be renamed. 23skidoo (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Dave. Santa Ana and Golden State Freeway is a differ story.--FRWY 22:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rschen
& NE2Admrboltz (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Since I oppose a deletion, I think you have the wrong name. --NE2 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats what I get for editing from work. Struck. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I oppose a deletion, I think you have the wrong name. --NE2 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reason separate articles exist for Interstate 95 in New York, Interstate 295 (New York) the Cross Bronx Expressway, Trans-Manhattan Expressway, Bruckner Expressway and New England Thruway. ----DanTD (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is none for the Long Island Expressway, Van Wyck Expressway, or Whitestone Expressway, to name a few. (All of those have a part that's not the Interstate they redirect to, just like the San Diego Freeway.) —NE2 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NE2, et al. I can't understand why such a prominent name for a highway would be proposed for deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still have to go through normal AFD, it's Wiki's rule. Even if it is a subpoint, this is to discuss with contributors. It don't have to be totally delete, it can turn into a #REDIRECT [[]]. Subpoint is this cheap.--FRWY 01:11, 4 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. Foxy Loxy Pounce! 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Charles Henry Corey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I do not see how Corey meets WP:BIO. Enigma message 05:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete He has done a few notable things in his time (principal of this school, for instance), but overall he just wasn't a notable enough figure in society to be included. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since he wasn't a notable enough figure in society anyway we don't need to bother looking for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Juzhong (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO of famousamericans.net/charleshenrycorey/ (can't post it as a link because of a filter of some sort). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (modulo taking care of copyvio problem, which may necessitate speedy) College president, nyt obituary [23]. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is always enough for a keep, as it is the general notability guideline, by the way.John Z (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No time to check, but I note the article creator's initial edit summary claims the source site is public domain. Plenty at gbooks btw.John Z (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the NYT obit is public domain by now. Juzhong (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per John Z's argument.Dr. Locarno (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep NYT obit is always enough for notability. The argument that he was so obviously unnotable that it isnt even worth looking for sources shows a lack of understanding of WP:N and V. & perhaps a lack of understanding of the significance of his school and others like it--it needs an article, though it might have one already under a variant name. DGG (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aiming that comment at anyone in particular, DGG? It's subjective to say someone has a "...lack of understanding..." seeing as there are different ways of understanding things :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 18:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect he aimed that comment at Juzhong. - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notablity is asserted and John Z shows independant sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep. Not college president. President of the Board of Trustees of the Market Square Presbyterian Church, according to obituary.--Eric Yurken (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Corey's obit, which supports the article info, is further down the page, which has several obits. The Market Square stuff is about Charles L. Bailey.John Z (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks John Z. Mets acad./notab. criterion #6 (highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution). Changed from comment to keep.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep looks good to me, would like to see better contnet...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment since it is clear that this article is going to be kept, at what point do we deal with the fact that it is copied from a copyrighted website? (famousamericans.net) I understand most people here want an article on this guy (and I concede he is notable) -- but unless someone is going to rewrite it in short order, I will be tempted to place a db-copyvio tag on it. It's fine to say that he is notable, but our judgment on that issue is, I think, trumped by Wikipedia's policy prohibiting copyright violations, and I think that means the article has to go (again, unless someone is willing to rewrite it). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. famousamericans.net/charleshenrycorey/ says that this came from Appletons Encyclopedia, which is public domain. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 1 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. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Randy Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is an autobiography, which has had over an year to fix its source problems. I believe it was nominated for CSD before. Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Notability - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll attempt to remove all of the spam links, sponsorship stuff, and misc unencyclopedic information. It may come down to seeing whether the remaining information can even survive as a stub. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The only notability asserted on this article are the three band associated with Randy Lane: No Address, Carolina Liar, and Pat Travers. No Address and Carolina Liar are both bands which the only true notability lies with the existence of the Randy Lane article, and Pat Travers lineup includes Randy Lane, hardly a real assertion of importance. Noting the circular notability runaround, this drummer's article is not notable, and I plan on AfDing the two articles once this article is deleted. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 06:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Fails all of criteria. It also looks like the other related band articles are similar in failing the notability guidelines. ThePointblank (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per guideline #2 of WP:MUSIC. Belonged to/associated with a few bands/artists that charted, despite slight lack of notability. Strongly recommend Randy stops editing his own article if this is to be kept. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to delete per ThePointblank's comment below. Borderline notability + desire for article deletion = delete in respect for WP:BLP (or so I believe that's how it goes...). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the essay WP:GARAGEBAND is a essential read. Tyler Stewart is notable because he's part of a band that has major recognition, and has received notable awards (such as a number of Juno's and Grammy's). Randy Lane appears to be not as notable, the only notable band he has been with is Pat Travers, but one thing to note is that relationships do not confer notability. Furthermore, looking at the talk page, it appears that the article's creator actually wants the article to BE deleted as well. ThePointblank (talk) 07:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to delete per ThePointblank's comment below. Borderline notability + desire for article deletion = delete in respect for WP:BLP (or so I believe that's how it goes...). Master&Expert (Talk) 23:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSIC states that a band can be notable if it has one or more notable members. Conversely, wouldn't that make the member of a notable band notable by the same reasoning? At the very least he could be redirected instead of deleted.- Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. It's not the same reasoning. Is the 7th chari violin in the Los Angeles Philharmonic notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I know we're not supposed to use the term 'vanity' here, but I can't help it. The edit history clearly shows this is a vanity piece. At first I thought it was OK, because the bands he's in also have their own articles (suggesting some notability) but those other articles should probably be proposed for deletion too. =Axlq 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or possibly redirect to Pat Travers Band, if such an article existed. A merge into Pat Travers would not be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Members of two seperate notable bands are usually kept (Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article) as a redirect to one or the other cannot be done. --neon white talk 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Only Pat Travers is notable, as has been reported above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd has nothing to Pat Travers, it's to determine whether Randy Lane is notable and being a member of two notable groups, No Address and Carolina Liar, makes him notable under current guidelines. --neon white talk 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you take a closer look at the two bands you've mentioned, the only reason why the band articles are there are because of Randy Lane's article's existence. Without Randy Lane, who is up for deletion right now, these band articles will be subsequently be non-notable and will be AfDed in due time. Therefore, applying circular logic in saying that a band member is notable because of the two otherwise non-notable bands without Randy Lane is... well... I won't finish that sentence... - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a pretty unfounded presumption, they exist because someone created them, both article demonstrate notablity as they have released multiple albums, have had hits and have coverage by sources. Please do not presume to know the outcome of deletion reviews before they have been nominated until then we should assume they are notable and therefore Randy Lane is notable for being part of both. --neon white talk 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that none of that is sourced ("released multiple albums", "have had hits"), we can argue that the bands are not notable here, without bringing it up in a specific AfD on those articles. Otherwise, we'd have to nominate all the (sometimes hundreds) of articles in a walled garden at the same time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This afd has nothing to Pat Travers, it's to determine whether Randy Lane is notable and being a member of two notable groups, No Address and Carolina Liar, makes him notable under current guidelines. --neon white talk 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have actually brought this exact issue up in the past on how to determine notability when someone is not a member of a "band" and have been told by admins that the same core guideline applies for all articles - 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 (WP:GNG). This makes sense and also follows the concept that "notability is not inherited". The one exception, in regards to music, is found at Criteria for musicians and ensembles, number 6, which states Contains at least one notable musician; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. In this case common sense would tell us that, on the Pat Travers article, it might be fine to include a list of musicians he has worked with, however not each musician should have their own article unless that musician has had significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. By all accounts, in this case, the subject of this article has not received "Significant coverage" (means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive - WP:SNG. An in depth article in Modern Drummer would qualify as "Significant coverage", a one line press release that says "Randy Lane has been touring with Pat Travers and will soon be recording a new disc with the guitarist" would not. Likewise, again based on the exact same criteria, being a member of a "notable" band does not allow every person to automatically receive their own article. The Additional criteria that can be used for all biographies are either The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them or The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field Currently there are not enough sources to show that the subject of this article meets either of these criteria. I would support a redirect to the band he was a member of for five years, No Address. A redirect to either Pat Travers or Carolina Liar would not make sense as Randy was not a member of either band, he was hired (or a "non-member member" if you will) and worked with Pat Travers during 2007 and was hired as the fill in drummer for Carolina Liar for a few months in 2008. As of October 28 Randy is not playing with them anymore as Max Grahn, Carolina Liars' drummer, is back. (From the bands tour blog - Max is Back!!! Randy Lane has been a huge help to us while Max was back in Sweden so we wanted to say thank you again for all of his help and wisdom! Max joined up with us yesterday in Denver and tonight at Sokol is his first show back. Nothing to crazy has happened with us in the last few days but I should review the tapes to see if some how I've forgotten something. I hope to see you guys tonight !! - Tuesday, October 28, 2008 [NOTE: I tired to provide the direct link but the Wikipedia SPAM filter seems ot have blacklisted myspace blogs)]) Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference between a 'member' of a band and someone who plays with a band is negligible, neither concept is defined anywhere and it really has little affect on notability, as neither can inherit the notability of the band, most band members are considered non-notable and are redirected, however in the case of a subject that has been a member of or played with notable bands, there is no obvious redirect so in general the articles are kept, it's not ideal but it's the current consensus as is demonstrated in the guidelines. --neon white talk 16:38, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Storme Aerison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article contains no content after being removed for being unsourced , there has been no discussion on the talk page. Synchronism (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Enigma message 06:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If/then I'm not familiar enough with deletion to know if it should be deleted. It's notable, but does that mean we have to keep it? Certainly, it was a BLP violation as it was. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Gross BLP violation that places undue weight on the negative aspects. - Mgm|(talk) 08:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, as the page has now been blanked. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The speedy has been declined by Tikiwont (talk · contribs). I've restored the article and stubbified it to removed the WP:BLP violations. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, let me clarify that i declined a speedy deletion that had been requested per CSD A3 per lack of content but that doesn't imo apply to an article that has been blanked. I haven't really checked the content underneath nor can i do so now.--Tikiwont (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the majority here, in view of current WP:BLP, I would add only that I initiated this article during my first six months of contributing and perhaps for that reason the article reflects many of the poor habits of a newbie (such as the POV slant). Although the article probably could be salvaged to meet at least minimally acceptable standards by spending a half hour or so editing and adding appropriate footnotes, unfortunately, I ain't got the time or interest these days. —Ryanaxp (talk) 20:36, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Diarrhea Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No sources, article is purely original research. For most of its life, the article has only been edited by anonymous IPs who have either added or removed lyrics from that section. Since the last AFD no substantial edits have been made and nothing has been sourced. Though a few people (including the user who contested the prod) will say that this seems notable, there are 0 sources for anything encyclopedic in this article. I wouldn't hesitate either to call this a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia's basic standard of inclusion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sorry, but the previous AfD is... well, a joke. ("Wikipedia, Wikipedia!") Just because something gets sung on the playground a lot doesn't mean thee should be an encyclopedia article about it. JuJube (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not original research. While popularity isn't necessarily always a reliable indicator of notability, it is widely known, thus warrants inclusion. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NSONGS. As per the main headline to the guideline, it states that "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine). ThePointblank (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources either reproduce the lyrics, or they're not independant from the creator. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not at all a notable song, no sources to provide anything more than the lyrics. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 13:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm thinking that this is one of those articles where we need to ignore the rules. --Pmedema (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide more indepth reasoning as to why you believe that? =- Mgm|(talk) 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that WP:ILIKEIT... I know that I grew up with it, and I'm pretty sure that everyone else has as well...? It's going to be pretty hard to find WP:RS's for this but I could go onto the streets and start one of the lines and ask "What's the next words?" and I'd probably get "Diarrhea... Diarrhea"...and maybe even a "cha cha chaaaa" after that.--Pmedema (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide more indepth reasoning as to why you believe that? =- Mgm|(talk) 20:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- There doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Reyk YO! 00:46, 1 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 Non-penetrative_sex. The content is rather trivial (one sentence), and there is a rough consensus that this short content should be preserved by merging to Non-penetrative_sex. (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Axillary intercourse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sourced only from one article, so I'm not convinced of it's notability. rootology (C)(T) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while there are plenty of other references available (just search in Google), do we need to have them in this article as well as the one here? Non-penetrative sex gives a different reference for this particular action. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That is two sources already and no doubt more can be found. It could also be merged, so I don't see a valid reason to delete this. -Mgm|(talk) 08:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Dictionary definition, stick it in on a parent article, like Non-penetrative sex. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:53, 31 October 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), as notability has been confirmed via this discussion. Class dismissed! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Turku International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:ORG no third party coverage indicating notability from Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enduring public institution inherently meets WP:V. Furthermore, long established WP precedent supports the retention of articles about high schools - 1 or 2 minor exceptions notwithstanding. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - both an international school and a high school. Sufficient sources are available to meet WP:N. However, we can't expect much in the way of news coverage in English for a Finnish school and time should be given for local searches to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Turku and/or Varissuo. While I have sympathy with Gene poole's point of view, lack of independent sources concern me. Let it await enough RS to justify an independent article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above and beyond the general consensus and precedent regarding the retention of secondary school articles, the sources provided do support a claim of notability. I also raise concerns about systemic bias issues in that coverage of non-English language subjects and schools are given short shrift. My Finnish is rather poor and none of the translation sites handle Finnish to English automated translation yet. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Finland has a population of over five million and yet there are currently Wikipedia articles on fewer than 30 Finnish schools, a tiny proportion compared to the huge numbers of articles on American and English schools. This school is particularly notable because it is one of only two international schools in the entire country [24]. A Google search reveals that there are a number of English-language sources, and no doubt many more Finnish sources will be available. Dahliarose (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is third party coverage in Finnish, such as here and here. --ざくら木 14:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This international school is one of seven international schools in Finland and one of the two municipal international schools in Finland, although its senior high (lukio) is not actually part of this school. (In Finland, there are one private, two municipal and two state-owned international schools. In addition, one is owned by the state and municipalities and one by the German Federal Republic.) As such, it is a rather notable secondary school and an example of a municipal int. school. If high schools --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep short, but referenced. Looks okay to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 1 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. Protonk (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gregory G. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable associate prof of math with very few first or sole authored papers on google scholar —G716 <T·C> 04:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this appears to be a different Gregory G. Smith than the subject of the first AfD—G716 <T·C> 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 04:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have a firm opinion about notability yet, but I want to make a few quick comments. First, in mathematics, unlike in applied and experimental sciences, the notion of the first author does not exist and authors are always listed in alphabetical order. MathSciNet shows 12 papers for this guy. That is not a huge number but he works in algebraic geometry, which is among the toughest fields in pure math and typical publication rate there is rather slow. He does have papers in some top-notch math journals, like Journal of the American Mathematical Society and Crelle's journal. The article also mentions the Aisenstadt Prize. Nsk92 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After looking around some more on MathSciNet and Zentralblatt MATH and doing some more googling, I'd have to go with delete. A young researcher, PhD 2001, has just gotten tenure. Two of his 12 articles are in top journals and there is the Aisenstadt Prize which is awarded to junior mathematicians and signifies promise more than established notability. May well be unambiguously notable in a few years, but too early now and does not pass WP:PROF yet. Nsk92 (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You say "has just gotten tenure". According to WP:PROF a tenured position is notable regardless of the subject's age. Also, the prize mentioned seems to be noteworthy, so that would also qualify him under criterion number 2 of WP:PROF. - Mgm|(talk) 08:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As Prosfilaes points out below, you are quite mistaken regarding tenure being sufficient for passing WP:PROF. WP:PROF does not say or imply this. Also, regarding the award, the award is certainly noteworthy but, being a junior level award, is not sufficient, IMO, to satisfy criterion 2 of WP:PROF. It is a valid contributing factor towards satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF but not sufficient for that either. For passing criterion 1 of WP:PROF, I would want to see some additional tangible evidence, such as some reviews saying that he solved a significant problem or proved a major theorem, or significant citability of his work, or some journal editorship(s), or some prestigious conference talks, such as AMS or ICM invited addresses or delivering named lectures or something like that. At the moment there is really not much in the record apart from the Aisenstadt Prize and having two of his papers published in very good journals. That's good but not sufficient for establishing notability. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Uh, where does WP:PROF say that tenure is notable? It says that "a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" is notable, which is a much stricter requirement. Again, it says a prize must be "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", not merely notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nsk92, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. --Crusio (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with Nsk92's assessment, and disagree with MacGyverMagic's interpretation of WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets academic/professor notability criterion #2 (prestigious academic award).--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding criterion 2 of WP:PROF: of course, ultimately, it is an individual judgement whether the prize in question is sufficient to satisfy this criterion. However, IMO, it is not sufficient. In several places WP:PROF specifically excludes graduate and postdoctoral level awards from consideration, even for partially satisfying Criterion 1 (see item 4 in the Notes and Examples section in WP:PROF). Moreover, the list of examples of awards sufficient for satisfying criterion 2 of WP:PROF, that is given in item 8 in the Notes and Examples section there, makes it clear that criterion 2 is meant for awards of more senior and more prestigious level. This is how, in my observations, this provision had been applied in the past. So I personally think that the junior level award, for academics in the very beginning of their careers, such as the Aisenstadt Prize, is a valid contributing factor towards partially satisfying criterion 1 of WP:PROF but is not sufficient for satisfying criterion 2 of WP:PROF. In fact, if you read the award citation[25] for Smith, the language used there pretty clearly indicate someone who is a very promising mathematician rather than one who is already very distinguished. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an easy call. The award is at the junior level, no doubt. The award page states that: "The CRM created and administers, either alone or jointly, four of the eight major national prizes in the mathematical sciences, namely: ... the CRM Aisenstadt Prize awarded to rising young Canadian stars ..." Yet the award carries national prestige, and is usually given to one person per year only. An NSF Career award (which is also prestigious, and at the junior level) perhaps should not be considered enough for crit. 2. The Aisenstadt Prize, however, seems to be in a different category, e.g., the comparatively much smaller number of recipients. Often Fields Medal recipients are at the early stages of their careers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the situation is not clear cut. However, certainly, the Fields medal is far more prestigious and well-known than the Aisenstadt Prize, even though the Fields medal has a 40-year-old age limit. That is why, in cases of doubt, like this one, I would like to see some additional tangible evidence of notability, e.g. high cotability, or reviews stating that he proved some major result, or having given some prestigious talks, or journal editorship(s), etc. I just do not see such evidence here yet. Nsk92 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not an easy call. The award is at the junior level, no doubt. The award page states that: "The CRM created and administers, either alone or jointly, four of the eight major national prizes in the mathematical sciences, namely: ... the CRM Aisenstadt Prize awarded to rising young Canadian stars ..." Yet the award carries national prestige, and is usually given to one person per year only. An NSF Career award (which is also prestigious, and at the junior level) perhaps should not be considered enough for crit. 2. The Aisenstadt Prize, however, seems to be in a different category, e.g., the comparatively much smaller number of recipients. Often Fields Medal recipients are at the early stages of their careers.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep yeah, it's short... let it grow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being short is not a problem. The issue is notability. Nsk92 (talk)
- Yeah, I get that... but it's still good enough for me. Color me "inclusionist" I guess...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am a bit confused about the PhD date. The article says 2001, but the Aisenstadt Prize citation[26] says 2004. He does not have a CV posted at his website. So which is the correct date? Nsk92 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's date is probably from the Genealogy website. I consider it unlikely that the prize citation is wrong. On the other hand, I checked Berkeley's library catalogue and his thesis is indeed from 2001. So I don't know. (I've no opinion on whether to delete the article; it's a tough call.) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No more notable than the average professor, at this stage. RayAYang (talk) 06:06, 4 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. Nothing worth merging. fish&karate 11:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Max Högquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. This person is related to a notable person, but notability is not inherited. I'm also listing the following page for the same reason: Hjalmar Högquist Schuym1 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Note:This is a bundle nomination. Schuym1 (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability as illegitimate son of king Oscar I of Sweden is well established, and of historical note. Proxy User (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And? That someone is of little interest to you does not define notable. The relationship establishes notability in the context of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. There may indeed be a handful of people out there doing research into obscure European history. Clearly not you, but then there are probably 1000's of articles I don't read, shall I nominate them all as non-notable? Proxy User (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only nominate articles for deletion that I think don't pass guidelines or polices. WP:BIO says that people being related to notable people is not a reason for inclusion. Schuym1 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if I don't know about the topic, I care if it passes policies or guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So can you please stop acting like such a jerk? Also, the discussion is not about me, it is about the article. Schuym1 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GOOD GRIEF! How about some WP:CIV? It's an important historical fact and is rightly documented in Wikipedia. But do chill out! Proxy User (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you didn't vote for a merge since you think that the info should stay. Schuym1 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GOOD GRIEF! How about some WP:CIV? It's an important historical fact and is rightly documented in Wikipedia. But do chill out! Proxy User (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So can you please stop acting like such a jerk? Also, the discussion is not about me, it is about the article. Schuym1 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if I don't know about the topic, I care if it passes policies or guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only nominate articles for deletion that I think don't pass guidelines or polices. WP:BIO says that people being related to notable people is not a reason for inclusion. Schuym1 (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And? That someone is of little interest to you does not define notable. The relationship establishes notability in the context of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. There may indeed be a handful of people out there doing research into obscure European history. Clearly not you, but then there are probably 1000's of articles I don't read, shall I nominate them all as non-notable? Proxy User (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His existence isn't proof of his notability. No evidence of notability. Doug Weller (talk) 06:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But his relationship with Oscar I makes him noteable, and Wikipedia's discussion of Oscar I would be INCOMPLETE without it. As a minimum, MERGE. But I think it should be left as it is for future editors to improve. Proxy User (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both. This is a very tricky one. WP:BIO doesn't seem to mention royalty. User:Schuym1 is absolutely right saying that notability is not inherited - the children of the famous are not inherently notable. However, this particular guideline seems to be aimed at keeping modern celebrity offspring off the 'pedia - a damn good thing IMHO. However, royalty is a different story altogether. I'd suggest that Royals are always notable - bastardy notwithstanding. I think the fact that these two were known as The Princes of Laponia actually demonstrates this difference - nobody calls Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt's kids The Princes of Cambodia and Vietnam :) Paxse (talk) 18:25, 30 October 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 03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the basic, additional and invalid criteria on WP:PEOPLE. Also, relationships do not confer notability. 06:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, I just did some quick searching, and the only information I was able to find on this person was Wikipedia mirrors and the like. WP:V problems, I think. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Oscar I. I would also agree that royalty is notable, regardless of legitimacy, but that is immaterial when it comes to merging, merging simply allows for Oscar to be fully discussed. - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agnieszka Zakreta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not satisfy WP:Note and a search on Google News shows no evidence that references are available to support notability. -Sykko-(talk to me) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability couldn't be established, article not warranted. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--I couldn't agree more. Drmies (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:39, 3 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. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- TabletKiosk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I don't know if this company is notable. I think this article was made to advertise via linking to it from articles on the types of products they make. Habanero-tan (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Google turns up many interesting hits. Apparently is now a popular maker of cheap tablet PCs. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP, there are no sources and it was edited by a user nicknamed TabletKiosk Gail, some notability. EconomistBR 17:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article now has sources, because I found and added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Properly sourced, could be a little more NPOV but notability is certainly established. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed keep - Meets WP:CORP. Eastmain researched and added sources that establish notability. The argument of lack of notability is no longer sustainable. EconomistBR 03:01, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wulf (2008 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nn film with no commercial release. No notable screenings, no distribution, no notable participants, and most importantly, no reliable sources. Previously ProDded as Wulf 2007 Film. gnfnrf (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn minor, amateur film. JJL (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete no assertion of notability whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a blog. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 this. No notability at all. ~Beano~ (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've declined the speedy because films cannot be speedy-able under A7. This is, however, a non-notable film. I can't find any reliable sources to assert this film's notability. Cunard (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a search finds no reliable sources to verify any of the films asertions. With respects to author Karatechris13, the film need to be seen and reviewed and get itself "out-there" before it can have an article. Good luck and bring it back once it gets some press. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:32, 31 October 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. Nomination withdrawn Wizardman 16:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wevie Stonder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't appear to pass notability standards. I found one reference, but it still fails WP:RS as it lacks multiple reliable sources. Wizardman 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, all recordings and band members are red-linked, only "references" are Myspace and the band's website, hmm.... sounds like a text book case of Speedy Delete to me. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep due to Michig's sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:MUSIC, particularly all of the basic criteria. Sounds (ignoring the pun) like a garage band to me. ThePointblank (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google search found these [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. These show plenty of coverage, heavy airplay, radio session for the BBC. You didn't find these?--Michig (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have improved the article using these sources - I don't think it can really be considered deletable now. And by the way, four albums on Skam is an assertion of notability (per WP:MUSIC), and the speedy deletion tag should not have been added.--Michig (talk) 09:50, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Every Day Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable online literary magazine. The main contributor is also the editor of the magazine, so conflict of interest is apparent. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assertion Absent written by "Speedy Delete", Notability Publishers, Inc. :) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a shame really. I'd like to see more magazines included but the Wall Street Journal (the nom didn't mention) was just a mention in a list of recommended websites and the majority of Google links are magazine databases and people talking about their story being published there, no significant third-party coverage discovered so far. - Mgm|(talk) 08:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the
COIlack of third-party coverage. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, right, sorry - in that case, I will still vote delete due to the lack of third-party coverage. It Is Me Here (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- O/t, but I have to wonder why there aren't any rules about COI. I mean, we have articles about how it's wrong, but whenever someone writes an article about themselves, the general reaction is "Weeelll...we discourage it but we're not going to do anything about it either."--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. How is Every Day Fiction less notable than Flash Fiction Online (whose article is also is written by the editor), Quick Fiction, or Flash Me? All have wikipedia articles, but have less traffic and exposure than EDF. Also, there has already been a discussion on notability on the talk page of Flash Fiction where wikipedia editors felt that EDF was notable enough to be mentioned. Certainly, if Every Day Fiction passes the notability test there, it should pass here. As for "editor as contributor", would it help if I asked someone on our forums to write the article? The page itself is non-promotional and doesn't try to sell anything. Indeed it's only a stub.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs)
- See WP:WAX. Although I'll be sure to look into those links you mentioned and see if they are deletion worthy. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that you flagged Flash Fiction Online's article, despite the discussion in the talk pages of Flash Fiction. Since the matter had already been settled there, I think the deletion is unwarranted. In any case, I took a look at WP:WAX, and this line jumped out at me: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Coupled with EDF's enormous (for a webzine) traffic, unique format, mention in the Wall Street journal, and high technorati rating, this should be enough to keep the article. I mean, we have more unique visitors per month than either Clarkesworld Magazine or Interzone, both of which are considered major magazines in sf circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, if it's notable, then why did the creator of the website have to be the one to start the article? Second, as for WP:WAX. My basic argument was "Just because article x exists and is similar to article y for whatever reasons, that alone does mean that either of them deserve to be kept. (For the record, one of the articles you mentioned was speedily deleted.) As for the Wall Street Journal link...its basically little more than a small blurb. "Things to check out on the web this week" and a little two sentence write up. Also, both Clarkesworld and Interzone both have received a number of prestigious awards from what little I've seen of their articles. Nothing indicates that with EDF.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every Day Fiction is rated very highly on the "Stumbleupon" listings, and receives a very large amount of traffic from stumbleupon users alone. Every day fiction is also high up on google and Duotropelistings. The webzine has also posted close to four hundred stories, meaning that this page would be valid for at least the contributors to Every Day Fiction.
- Every Day Fiction also hosts a writing forum and a writing group. Many authors reference to Every Day Fiction in their writing blogs and many more display their Every Day Fiction stories on their various portfolios. The reason the main contributing editor of this article is the editor of the magazine is that the community at Every Day Fiction have entrusted the task of this desired page onto the person we trust to be able to give us the Wikipedia article we need. --MFSherlock (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the first newly registered SPA arrives. I was wondering when that was going to happen.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I appreciate what you're trying to do for Wikipedia. I can certainly see how the site could get clogged with small zines. However, EDF has a large number of subscribers, a format different from other ezines, and is relevant based on the discussion on the Flash Fiction page. I mean, NO small ezine is relevant according to your arguments, but certainly you can't be considering wiping out all their entries? The SPA happened because the argument that I wrote the entry is senseless. I could have asked any of a number of forum posters to create it and wikipedia would never have known the difference. Heck, I could have done it anonymously. Re: Wall Street Journal--You're judging relevance based on what? That entry not only appeared online, but also in print. Certainly the editors of the Wall Street Journal deemed it relevant enough to waste ink on it. Finally, I just won first place in Writers of the Future, one of those "prestigious awards" you mentioned. As managing editor, certainly that gives the magazine relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 15:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the first newly registered SPA arrives. I was wondering when that was going to happen.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, if it's notable, then why did the creator of the website have to be the one to start the article? Second, as for WP:WAX. My basic argument was "Just because article x exists and is similar to article y for whatever reasons, that alone does mean that either of them deserve to be kept. (For the record, one of the articles you mentioned was speedily deleted.) As for the Wall Street Journal link...its basically little more than a small blurb. "Things to check out on the web this week" and a little two sentence write up. Also, both Clarkesworld and Interzone both have received a number of prestigious awards from what little I've seen of their articles. Nothing indicates that with EDF.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that you flagged Flash Fiction Online's article, despite the discussion in the talk pages of Flash Fiction. Since the matter had already been settled there, I think the deletion is unwarranted. In any case, I took a look at WP:WAX, and this line jumped out at me: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Coupled with EDF's enormous (for a webzine) traffic, unique format, mention in the Wall Street journal, and high technorati rating, this should be enough to keep the article. I mean, we have more unique visitors per month than either Clarkesworld Magazine or Interzone, both of which are considered major magazines in sf circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 21:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:WAX. Although I'll be sure to look into those links you mentioned and see if they are deletion worthy. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. How is Every Day Fiction less notable than Flash Fiction Online (whose article is also is written by the editor), Quick Fiction, or Flash Me? All have wikipedia articles, but have less traffic and exposure than EDF. Also, there has already been a discussion on notability on the talk page of Flash Fiction where wikipedia editors felt that EDF was notable enough to be mentioned. Certainly, if Every Day Fiction passes the notability test there, it should pass here. As for "editor as contributor", would it help if I asked someone on our forums to write the article? The page itself is non-promotional and doesn't try to sell anything. Indeed it's only a stub.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs)
- COI is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noted that this article is being edited by others, which should talk care of the COI problem, especially since the wording of the article isn't promotional in any way. Also, I added a section on awards to include the placement in the Preditors and Editors Readers Choice Awards. I can add my Writers of the Future win, as well, if you'd like. Is there anything else I (or the EDF forum members) can do to further establish relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on what e-zine you're talking about. You mentioned Clarkesworld and Interzone. Those pass the notability test. And while the COI does factor in a bit, removing the COI doesn't make it any more notable for inclusion. In this case, all it did was alert me to the COI logs, but someone else would have probably stumbled upon it anyways and have similar concerns.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noted that this article is being edited by others, which should talk care of the COI problem, especially since the wording of the article isn't promotional in any way. Also, I added a section on awards to include the placement in the Preditors and Editors Readers Choice Awards. I can add my Writers of the Future win, as well, if you'd like. Is there anything else I (or the EDF forum members) can do to further establish relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apparently now people are being asked on the Every Day Fiction messageboard to vote in this argument, as evidenced by this topic. (Apparently I'm a 'sarky little git' for pointing out that the moderator of the board was a SPA because his sole edits were on this page.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't hold us responsible for the name-calling. If wikipedia were held responsible for the actions of third parties they would have been sued many times over. I know that you're doing a good thing for wikipedia, even if, in this case, I believe that EDF does qualify for inclusion. I asked forum members to comment to take care of the conflict of interest problem, which according to the remarks at the top of this page, isn't a valid reason to delete anyways. So we're dealing strictly with the notability problem only, which I believe I've address above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Lapp (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't holding you or the site responsible for namecalling (that was just an aside on my apart; I could care less about that tbh) but rather the requests for people to vote in the discussion and whether or not they are neutral third parties or not. I'll respond to your other questions above later.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote a "talk" and filled out the survey to show I'm a real legitimate person. The question I want to pose is every one who reads Every Day Fiction is an "interested party." Once they read it and enjoy it, they are vested. How does a third party come about? Although the mention in the Wall Street Journal is small it is definitely recognition by a "third party." Someone at that esteemed publication read EDF and thought it worthy of comment. They became "vested." I consider that a good thing and a strong recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaia 101 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) </nowiki>[reply]
- The Wall Street Journal's section is little more than a brief mention and by itself does not constitute as 'significant coverage' on the subject. Literally all it says is "Fiction features a new short story every 24 hours. The first line from a recent entry: "' woman sat in a brown cubicle, unplugged. She went to get coffee from the lunchroom. When she took out the milk from the refrigerator, the milk bottle spoke'." That's it. And your argument that everyone who reads it automatically becomes an interested party is faulty as well--my problem is that people associated with the site (as you clearly are) are being asked on the forum to come in and vote in favor of the article being kept. This happens a lot on Wikipedia deletion discussions, which is why I may come off as a 'sarky little git' in the situation as it's tiring.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the remark. However i used to check regulary to see if we had a wikipedia page up, and as soon as i would have seen this...i would have discussed on this topic whether Jordan asked on the forum or not. I'm not an SPA account either, i have been on wikipedia previously and edited...however i couldnt remember my account details so i made this one. The fact we are on duotrope would make this a nessescity if anything. For example, if someone was to find us on duotrope, they could then check us out on wikipedia and see what the deal was. i would also like to add that any namecalling and personal attacks etc took place AWAY from wikipedia, and thus hold no weight or relevance on this discussion, and as such are not a point you can raise towards our deletion.--MFSherlock (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said earlier, the namecalling was never part of my argument for deletion, it was just an aside. It would be ridicilous of me to actually use that one isolated comment as leverage for it's deletion. My problem was the admin going on the messageboard and asking the members to come onto this discussion to vote 'keep', which has happened numerous times in similar AFDs and is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. (And for the record, since you asked on the forum, the reason why I read the forum in the first place because I was suspicious of all the newly registered users coming on the AFD and article's talk page, so I looked up the official site to see if there were any calls to post on the Wikipedia page... and found one within seconds.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, i just get the chills when i think of people keeping tabs on me and my friends. I would put the whole forum post thing down more to Jordan being new to wikipedia (if he is) and i would treat it more as a newcomer mistake, so maybe you could help us in establishing the page for wikipedia and making it fit for keeping? I must say im not totally wise on all this.--MFSherlock (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hardly 'keeping tabs'. I noticed some suspicious behavior and I took literally five seconds to see if the site was asking people to vote in, which it was. It's not like I'm hiding in your garbage can rummaging for evidence. Sheesh.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, i just get the chills when i think of people keeping tabs on me and my friends. I would put the whole forum post thing down more to Jordan being new to wikipedia (if he is) and i would treat it more as a newcomer mistake, so maybe you could help us in establishing the page for wikipedia and making it fit for keeping? I must say im not totally wise on all this.--MFSherlock (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said that I was going to ask forum member to contribute in an earlier thread. I wasn't trying to hide anything from you at all. I didn't ask anyone to vote to keep the article either, I simply asked them to find more details and references for the wikipedia page. We get hundreds of links from across the internet (at least a couple a day), so I was hoping they could track down some of the more pertinent ones, and also fill in the content, since apparently I was not allowed to do. You seem to have a combative attitude (misreading the thread in question), which is really not helpful, and deleting the other articles I mentioned was just petulant. Is there someone more impartial we can deal with?204.244.176.97 (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, I didn't delete anything and if this article gets deleted I won't be the one to do so. Another administrator reviewed the articles, assessed as to whether or not they should stay and he or she deleted them. If you feel that they should have stayed, then you should bring it up to Deletion Review and maybe they'll be brought back.
- And no one ever said that you weren't allowed to contribute on the article. If you can add relevant information, then go ahead.
- As for wanting someone else to participate...that's not how it works. I don't see how I'm not being impartial to this either as I don't have any personal vendetta against the site. I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion, but that's another matter entirely. Although I don't see how an editor/moderator/established member of a website can remain neutral on the matter either.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said earlier, the namecalling was never part of my argument for deletion, it was just an aside. It would be ridicilous of me to actually use that one isolated comment as leverage for it's deletion. My problem was the admin going on the messageboard and asking the members to come onto this discussion to vote 'keep', which has happened numerous times in similar AFDs and is strongly discouraged by Wikipedia. (And for the record, since you asked on the forum, the reason why I read the forum in the first place because I was suspicious of all the newly registered users coming on the AFD and article's talk page, so I looked up the official site to see if there were any calls to post on the Wikipedia page... and found one within seconds.)--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the remark. However i used to check regulary to see if we had a wikipedia page up, and as soon as i would have seen this...i would have discussed on this topic whether Jordan asked on the forum or not. I'm not an SPA account either, i have been on wikipedia previously and edited...however i couldnt remember my account details so i made this one. The fact we are on duotrope would make this a nessescity if anything. For example, if someone was to find us on duotrope, they could then check us out on wikipedia and see what the deal was. i would also like to add that any namecalling and personal attacks etc took place AWAY from wikipedia, and thus hold no weight or relevance on this discussion, and as such are not a point you can raise towards our deletion.--MFSherlock (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wall Street Journal's section is little more than a brief mention and by itself does not constitute as 'significant coverage' on the subject. Literally all it says is "Fiction features a new short story every 24 hours. The first line from a recent entry: "' woman sat in a brown cubicle, unplugged. She went to get coffee from the lunchroom. When she took out the milk from the refrigerator, the milk bottle spoke'." That's it. And your argument that everyone who reads it automatically becomes an interested party is faulty as well--my problem is that people associated with the site (as you clearly are) are being asked on the forum to come in and vote in favor of the article being kept. This happens a lot on Wikipedia deletion discussions, which is why I may come off as a 'sarky little git' in the situation as it's tiring.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote a "talk" and filled out the survey to show I'm a real legitimate person. The question I want to pose is every one who reads Every Day Fiction is an "interested party." Once they read it and enjoy it, they are vested. How does a third party come about? Although the mention in the Wall Street Journal is small it is definitely recognition by a "third party." Someone at that esteemed publication read EDF and thought it worthy of comment. They became "vested." I consider that a good thing and a strong recommendation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaia 101 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) </nowiki>[reply]
- Delete. As said above, a (very) brief mention in the WSJ is not enough notable, third-party sourcing for this article to pass the notability guidelines. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that the WJS mention alone may not be enough to establish notability. I'm sorry to accuse CyberGhostface of not being impartial, but you're cherry picking on notability. The WSJ is only a part of the argument raised above. Let's lay out the rest:
- - Top 10 placing in Preditors and Editors Reader's Choice awards in two categories
- - Managing Editor has won a major literary award (Writers of the Future.
- - Has a PageRank of 5 (Notable to Google), with hundreds of incoming links from authors, and a Technorati authority of 100.
- - Is publishing a hard copy "Best-Of" anthology.
- - Has been deemed Notable on the Flash Fiction page.
- - Has greater traffic then several award-winning pro-paying zines.
- Please make your recommendation based on all the arguments that have been raised.Jordan Lapp (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me where it was deemed notable on the Flash Fiction page?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the discussion page. Criteria for Market Relevance are established by User:DaveClapper and Jdfeivald. I'm not sure how a market can be relevant, but not notable. In any case, that is just one of the arguments I posted above. Surely all those points together add up to enough notability to remain in Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.176.97 (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show me where it was deemed notable on the Flash Fiction page?--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:46, 4 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. Deleting this kind of meaning (i.e. BDSM). Edison and/or Geo Swan, you are most welcome (and I doubt the delete-supporters disagree, to recreate a new article about the term in historic context. SoWhy 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Domestic discipline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Despite the title, this article is narrow BDSM term used to promote one web site in WP:ADVERT fashion. No indication that the terminology is used with this meaning elsewhere. The third-party article linked is about "Christian Domestic Discipline", and it's hosted on a personal web site. It's not even clear if that article is addressing the same topic, because the Wikipedia article makes no mention of religious issues. VG ☎ 01:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 01:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This Google News archive search generates about 288 references. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Shreditor (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge what can be verified into Discipline Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I feel sure there must be something rather better on the subject than this article, though I am not sure what. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage back to the early 19th century and publications from around the world, in the Google News archive search cited above. Many are only available via subscription to Proquest or the publication's pay archives, but it is clear that "domestic discipline " has long been a subject of discussion in the media. See [34] an 1872 article which describes a North Carolina Supreme Court ruling on "domestic discipline". NY Times 1916 [35] discusses a husbands "ancient privilege of maintaining domestic discipline with sticks not exceeding the size of his own thumb" in relation to a wife's pledge to "obey." Domestic discipline generally refers to someone in authority beating someone he has authority over, and there are many references to it. Edison (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think that the old sources pointed out by Edison cover the same concept, even if they use the same terminology. From the Wikipedia article: Practitioners argue that DD is distinct from domestic abuse because consent is involved. Some also argue that it differs from erotic spanking because the object is mainly discipline, rather than sexual arousal. The only source to use DD with this meaning is that website linked at the end of the article. VG ☎ 13:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The usage in the 19th century and more recent cites refers to the same thing: maintenance of order in the household by punishment or the threat of it. It was definitely not considered abuse by the commentors, not by the head of household, and not, generally, in retrospect by the recipients of it. Edison (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're engaging in pure WP:OR here. VG ☎ 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are not OR. It is pretty plainly stated. Please read WP:OR. Edison (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're engaging in pure WP:OR here. VG ☎ 20:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- when I was a young teenager my older brother was a college student. I raided his bookshelf on contemporary politics. I borrowed his copy of Abby Hoffman's "Steal this book", "The autobiography of Malcolm X" and Eldridge Cleaver's "Soul on Ice". A decade later, after his exile in Algeria, living underground in France, Eldridge Cleaver became a "born-again" Christian, and wrote a new, different biography, "Soul on Fire". He returned to the USA, and tried to get work on the Republican born-again speaking tour. I found something very remarkable about Cleaver's transformation. Prior to becoming a self-educated political activist in prison Cleaver had been a criminal. Among his crimes was rape. As a political activist he justified raping white women by claiming, although he didn't realize it at the time -- raping white women was a political act. Raping white women was a step along his path to personal political liberation as an oppressed black man. Then, as a vastly transformed Republican and social conservative he wrote something I found remarkable. He wrote that Christianity endorsed a husband beating his wife, using violence to enforce discipline on his wife. So, what we had here was an individual who had gone through at least two transformations -- from criminal to revolutionary -- and from revolutionary to political conservative. Yet through all these tranformations he had consistently endorsed violence against women. The reason I brought this up is that it suggests to me that there may be room for an article on "domestic discipline" that has nothing to do with BDSM. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR. Springnuts (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is almost entirely Original Research. The single reference that is listed largely conflicts with the content of the article and isn't a Reliable Source anyway. Kaldari (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - OR and POV problems; shamelessly confuses multiple topics. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 6 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 speeedy delete (G3) by Mattinbgn , NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathan franzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be a hoax. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't think it's a hoax (but birth date is wrong) Google search Appears to be a junior footballer and thus is not notable. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete every fact claimed is completely false. Definition of a vanity/hoax article. He doesn't claim to be a junior footballer, so that's irrelevant. The-Pope (talk) 02:36, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Food Guy with Jason Schiff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable TV show on College TV Network. No notability is asserted. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NOTE as per the General notability guidelines, in that there is a lack of significant, reliable, and independent coverage from a secondary source. ThePointblank (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:27, 3 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken in hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication that this BDSM term is used beyond the site that is promoting it. WP:ADVERT in my view; prod removed. VG ☎ 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Taken in Hand is not a BDSM term. It is a style of relationship separate from the BDSM subculture. However, I agree that the term is not notable enough to include in an encyclopedia. Shreditor (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I actually don't know if it's a BDSM term, I just think that doesn't matter very much. More important is that most of the content of this page comes from the webpage takeninhand.com. So there is pretty little relevance of that subject outside of takeninhand.com. Gamgee (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in agreement with the case made above. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong, speedy delete - Per WP:NOT, it says it is a neologism, so why hasn't it been deleted already? Should've been PRODded because of the irony in the page. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:44, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- SQLPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable software product - fails WP:PRODUCT. It's available from a lot of free download sites - but that means nothing as anyone can access and upload to them. I can find no coverage, either mentions or reviews, from any reliable 3rd party sources (unusually for free software available from a lot of download sites, I've also struggled to find any user reviews). Cameron Scott (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Add third party sources or uninstall this article. Wikipedia is not place for self promotion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not directory of software products. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:20, 1 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 Female dominance. ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Loving Female Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication that this BDSM terminology has gained acceptance beyond the proponent Elise Sutton, which authored the only reference for the article. VG ☎ 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article consists mainly of a large section entitled "Around Her Finger", which seems to be different (?!) term, completely unreferenced, except for the link to a porn site. VG ☎ 00:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge a small amount of this somewhere., The discussion as it is is essentially undocumented OR. DGG (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Female dominance. Editors on that page can merge bits and pieces of it from the revision history. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Squidfryerchef. McWomble (talk) 04:59, 4 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 Jac16888 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Krysten moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced. "American Miss New Jersey Teen", whatever that is, is not notable. There are only two google hits for "American Miss New Jersey Teen", and neither of them is about this person. COI issues, as well. [36] says the 2007-2008 "American Miss New Jersey Teen" is Catherine Ha. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not sure if this helps, but googling "National Bully Prevention Spokesperson Krysten Moore" gets you 54 ghits. i checked the first couple of pages and they first 10 or so mention her. Mission Fleg (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She won a title and she'll be doing publicity in New Jersey. This is referenceable. WP:PAPER. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A" title does not make one notable, unless the title itself is notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral"Miss Teen New Jersey International" is a non-notable pageant. Winning it does not make one notable. A more notable NJ pageant would be Miss New Jersey Teen USA, the winners which go on to Miss Teen USA — the winners of which are marginally notable.Per info added about non-pageant activities. - Atmoz (talk) 16:42, 26 October 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) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Well... looking at the article itself, it offers this link to Love Our Children USA and this to Miss Teen International, which shows she's a 2007 winner, not a 2008. I made a correction to the article to reflect this source. Further, and specially after being part of an AfD for Miss Teen Nepal, it was pretty much decided that such smaller pagents are just as worthy as their larger brethren. Local notability is notability none-the-less. Notability does not have to be world-wide. That said... we come to the issue of does this win give her notability? Maybe. But it might otherwise be considerd a WP:ONEVENT and dismissed... except for that she is now also a "National Bully Prevention" spokesperson, and that coverage Love Our Children USA, Miss NJ International, Miss Teen International, Namct.org, Cscic.state.ny.us, Youth for Youth, Miyo.CaseFoundation, Next Step Magazine, Rachel Ray Show, etc.... would tend to show she does have a notability, albeit minor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE. I have just added those sources to the article, as either sourcing the assertions or as external links. She's notable for more than being a teen beauty queen. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep There are credible claims of notability included in the article, and there are sources to support the anti-bullying role. I'd like to see these sources better integrated into the article, and will reconsider my vote if this is done. I have already edited the article and I have no idea who the person is -- other than we live in the same state -- and I will be more than happy to address any genuine WP:COI issues if they are raised. Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I am upgrading to Keep based on the additional sources added by MichaelQSchmidt, which demonstrate that Moore's notability is primarily related to her longstanding anti-bullying advocacy, above and beyond her pageant win. Kudos on the effort to expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. In particular, the article fails this criteria: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. ThePointblank (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How widely must her contributions be recognized? Citywide? Statewide? Countrywide? Or worldwide? According to the sources, through her foundation of SHINE (Students Helping Instill New Esteem) and her being the National Prevention spokesperson for Love Our Children USA, she has been recognized for her contributions in her city and her state, and through the pagent and television, her country. [37], [38], [39]... there's more in the article. She has made as tremendous an impact as anyone can at 19, and is creating her own notability in her own field. Or can she not qualify unless she is much older? She does seem to pass WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG... the more people-specific guidelines of WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I have is that this article is about a specific person that maybe isn't that notable. For example, Alaina Podmorow, a young 11 year old doesn't have an article on her despite receiving coverage of her work from the CBC, the Canadian government, Maclean's, and many other sources. She maybe notable from a local standpoint, but from the standpoint of Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. From what I can tell, her bit notoriety only came from a short burst of media coverage which quickly died down. In fact, there is more reason to have an article on Alaina Podmorow than Krysten Moore because of her continued media coverage past the initial burst of coverage under these guidelines. ThePointblank (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I certainly can agree with your WP:WAX argument that Alaina Podmorow could deserve an article, I do not agree that 3 years of coverage in a 19-year-old's life for multiple assertions of notability with more than-local-coverage, which has not yet "died down" is only a short burst. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of continued in depth coverage that is the problem I am having. I am only seeing 1 major article on her in a local newspaper, plus a short appearance on national TV. I would be fine if I see multiple in depth coverage (for example, a more broadly recognized article in a newspaper, complete with biography, work, everything, plus a major story on her on national TV), but since the Krysten Moore is only covered in 1 newspaper article, and is briefly mentioned on national TV (as a secondary source). That's not notable enough from my standpoint. ThePointblank (talk) 00:06, 1 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- North Grand Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mall, no sources found. Article consists of one whole sentence. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per Eastmain's sources.[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yeah, I'm coming down on the same side as Hammer on this one.. it's been around since july and the only time the article has been significantly alterd was when it was vandalized. I'd say this is an example of an article that does more harm than good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added some references. The fact that an article is a stub is not a reason to delete it, and it's better now than before. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:52, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antler-Subway Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing that shows notability in this search and nothing in this search. Schuym1 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Home to several notable bands/artists, with a fair share of incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability. WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the links reliable sources that show notability? Schuym1 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't show notability. WP:CORP and WP:NOTABILITY. Schuym1 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have any opinion on keeping or deleting, but I would point out that the Google News search in the nomination only covers the last month. An "all dates" Google News search gets plenty of hits [40]. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:15, 27 October 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) 00:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per WP:COMPANY. I do not see a third party article on the record company, nor do I see a reason why it is notable. ThePointblank (talk) 06:25, 31 October 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheapbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Significance not asserted, written like advertisement (terms like customer-centric?!?). May simply require a rewrite, though. DavidWS (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could this simply require a rewrite to assert significance and to be written in a neutral POV? What do you think? DavidWS (talk) 13:03, 26 October 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) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup tremendously — no blatant advertising, but needs some good cleanup/copyediting to get rid of the tone. Articles has independent sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:V none of the given references are reliable sources, most are one line mentions of the website in University magazine articles. Just looks like another text-book buyback service to me. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- The sources are just passing mentions and do not establish that notability requirements are met. They prove the company exists, but that's all. So what? There's lots of companies in the world. Most aren't notable, like this one. Reyk YO! 00:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--some of the sources weren't even passing mentions, really: one was a story about a competitor. After editing out the trivia and spam, what's left is that this company exists, and that a campus newspaper once suggested students might use its website. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Article is an ad, too short, has unreliable references and is non-notable. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:26, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Proprietary technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant description of Proprietary with a twist specifically on "technology". Stub article and I can't even find any really good sources for it as a dictionary definition. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Most of what is worth repeating (along with a deal of uncited material) is at Vendor lock-in, but a redirect would be tendentious. William Avery (talk) 13:41, 28 October 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) 00:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article consists of a one sentence WP:DICTDEF. The concept is covered elsewhere (see William Avery's comment). VG ☎ 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think the article is about vendor lock-in, but technologies that are developed by organizations for their own internal use. For example, "Google uses proprietary technology in their data centres to reduce energy consumption". I don't know if it can be expanded beyond a dictionary definition though. Rilak (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dictionary definition. WillOakland (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant and a dicdef. - ÆÅM «(fætsøn!) 11:24, 4 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. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline promotional article. Out of the two references provided, one of them is merely a link to the alumni page of a graduate school, and the other is a news story with only the vaguest of references to D2M (and doesn't even mention the company my name). Cannot find anything on Google other than mentions in various directory sites. Tagged for {{notability}} and {{advert}} since 1st October, concerns have not been addressed. Not enough to establish notability IMO, and comes close to a G11 speedy. (Note: previous AfD was about a band with the same name. No other connections.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 October 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, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:COMPANY. ThePointblank (talk) 06:22, 31 October 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 Characters of Silent Hill 2. No material in the article was sourced to any WP:RS/WP:V sources whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maria (Silent Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entirely unsourced text which provides no sense of notability, and no actual substance over the game's article at Silent Hill 2. It is merely a retelling of the plot of the main game and sub-scenario, as well as a list of endings, which is done far more succinctly in the Silent Hill 2 article, which also has some comments about Maria's design in the "influences and design" section (which could always be expanded there, if a source was found). SynergyBlades (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Characters of Silent Hill 2. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent notability (WP:N), no reliable, independent sources (WP:V). The in-depth in-universe text is not suitable for a merge (WP:WAF), and the title does not make a useful redirect. The dab link at Maria should be changed to point to the Characters article. Marasmusine (talk) 10:16, 27 October 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) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to character list 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- the same arguments I used at the Alex Shepherd AfD below apply here. Reyk YO! 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into main character article. No real-world context or analysis; non-notable for individual article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:58, 4 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 Silent Hill characters. No material in the article was sourced to any WP:RS/WP:V sources whatsoever. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alex Shepherd (Silent Hill) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Entirely unsourced text which provides no sense of notability, and no actual substance over the game's article at Silent Hill Homecoming. It is a bloated retelling of the plot of the main game, which is done to better effect and more succinctly at the Homecoming article, and also has a set of bullet-pointed trivia, some of which is not notable and some of which, like the fact that he is a descendent of the town's founder, is already included - and referenced - in the Homecoming article. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. SynergyBlades (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:51, 26 October 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, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a List of characters in the Silent Hill franchise or similar. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this character already has a paragraph at List of Silent Hill characters, which is all that is necessary. We do not need yet another long, rambling, unsourced, in-universe article about a fictional character. Reyk YO! 00:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Silent Hill characters. Reyk said it best. --Lockley (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Reyk. I don't like to use "per [user]" but he's said all there is to say, really. Mr. Absurd (talk) 01:57, 4 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 merged. Flowerparty☀ 05:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NN. Belinrahs (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It got coverage on the BBC news site (and the article references this). Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 27 October 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, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are several characters named "Mr. Mouse", I hardly see this as a more likely one than the others. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? At worst this should be merged into the Esure article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if there are more characters with that name, that would be cause for disambiguation, rather than deletion. _ Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Esure. The BBC article confirms the information in the article, but isn't focussed on Mr. Mouse as the topic (the mouse is just part of a longer article), therefore I don't think it is sufficiently notable to have its own article, but the information is confirmed and can easily be covered in the company article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. There's enough references to pad out the Esure article: BBC article about the introduction of the trademark, and the subsequent trademark battle which went against Esure. Nevertheless, the fact that the trademark which won the case—Direct Line's red telephone on wheels—doesn't have its own article (it's covered at the company's page) lends support to a merge or delete argument. I'd favour the former per the requirements of the GFDL. Also, there's references to a "Mr Mouse" in several other places on WP (Mickey Mouse and Tom & Jerry cartoons, among others) if people are going to make a dab page. --DeLarge (talk) 17:17, 5 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. Merge discussions, if desired, can be carried out on the article's talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative exhibition spaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF of a non-notable term. Tavix (talk) 23:49, 26 October 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) 00:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's simply not much to say about this concept. --Lockley (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Vague.Merge with Art gallery, per Johnbod's suggestion below, recognizing subsequent discussion and improvements to article. JNW (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dictionary definition with little chance of being expanded. Notability is completely irrelevant in this case. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom..Modernist (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment see below..Modernist (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 19:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wish people would stop submitting their linguistic inventions. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and plenty of scope for expansion. Art in America provides a history [41] and The new York Times gives some opinion [42]. This book [43] says that the subject has its own "significant body of literature" within museum studies.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Contemporary art gallery, or Art gallery; no need for separate article, especially when the only one mentioned has been going since 1976. However the subject is clearly notable, and the nomination now outdated, so keep rather than delete. If kept, rename using "space". Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some more content. The phenomena is well documented, and has played a significant role in the development of performance and video art.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ethicoaestheticist. Yes, expanding the article is necessary, but this is significant territory and has been well documented beyond a neologism. I can add info here about Canada and artist-run centres, and I'm sure more international info could be added as well. freshacconci talktalk 17:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ethicoaestheticist although the article needs a lot of help..Modernist (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:09, 5 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 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David Menocal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like a vanity page - filled with high school accomplishments and personal recollections (for example, "Menocal punched someone in the face for just standing there"); the primary contributors are two accounts (User:Bamfbencher and User:Worldclassbencher) that appear to have been created solely for writing this article. The subject does not appear to come close to satisfying WP:BIO. From a web search, it would appear that so far he has only been a backup center on the Furman team, not a three-year starter as claimed; here it is mentioned that he is expected to compete for a starting job this year. Also note that the claim of his holding the NCAA bench press record is not supported by the provided reference (and I could not verify this by a web search either). Dsreyn (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE until notability is asserted. DARTH PANDAduel 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as non-notable and with factual problems. --Lockley (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 00:09, 3 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.