Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 31
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | Talk 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Japan–Seychelles relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non resident embassies, and a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly in multilateral context especially in whaling. Whilst Japan (amongst other countries) is a aid donor to the Seychelles, this can easily be covered in 1 or 2 sentences in Foreign relations of Seychelles. only article I found was this which doesn't make an article. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some sources. Japan is a major trade partner with Seychelles (purchasing 8.3% of Seychelles' exports). The countries also have historic agreement and disagreements based on whaling. The page deserves further development. I doubt anyone from Seychelles would think that these relations were "non-notable".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of this article, User:Russian Luxembourger was never notified of the this Afd by the nominating editor User:LibStar as is strongly suggested at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, the creator was notified at 01:13, 27 May 2009. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is a directory listing of arbitrary events linking the two countries. There are no sources indicating any notability in the relations. Naturally each country wants to cooperate with as many other countries as possible – it's not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there are major trade relationships, then that is notability. The article topic is about all sorts of international relations, not just narrowly diplomatic. DGG (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not, I'm pointing it out as an argument to avoid not as any policy. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - yeah, there's a lot of Japanese cash floating around the Seychelles (like that's unusual). Does that mean anyone has actually bothered to write about "Japan–Seychelles relations", rather than what a handful of Wikipedians think that is? Of course not. - Biruitorul Talk 01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An unremarkable chronicle of handhsaking that doesn't stir much waves in terms of the topics importance in world affairs. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete where are the reliable independent sources that discuss this relationship in some sort of depth that might establish it as a notable one? Fails GNG. Bali ultimate (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Synthesis of utterly non-notable and random events, with no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. And, among the many questionable "bilateral relations" articles, this one takes the cake so far in terms of ridiculousness. Dahn (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect/merge to Foreign relations of Seychelles The article seems to be a summary of the last two years of this relationship, which does not make it worthy of an article. The content could be useful, though, if added to the short Foreign relations of Seychelles. 2help (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was seedy delete per WP:NPOV & WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vitamin drinks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Where do I start? WP:NPOV & WP:SPAM probably. This article, although referencing some negative publicity, is very much written with a bias toward the product. Indeed to the point where it could be classed as Spam. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as db-spam, in its current form. I hate to see an article so well-referenced go, but in its current form, this is clearly an advertisement. I'd happily change my vote if the article were fundamentally rewritten per WP:NPOV. Btw, the article is (now?) VitaminWater. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexz Johnson (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Album title hasn't been confirmed, tracks hasn't been confirmed, released date hasn't been confirmed. None of the sources are reliable sources, the article fails WP:NALBUMS. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Poor sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Again I ask, why is everyone in such a big hurry? The first nanosecond some fanboy hears about rumors for an album, he's tripping over himself to be the FIRST FIRST FIRST to spread the news! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & . Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, No release date, no title, undecided track listing, poor sources = easily fails WP:MUSIC. Astronaut (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonel Boljanac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete No sources, barely asserts notability. mynameincOttoman project Review me 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any coverage at all in Google News under either of his last names (all dates)[1], [2] – not even a gig listing. On the web all mentions appear to be music downloads for sale, self-published youtube videos, Wikipedia and its mirrors, and his own MySpace page. Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the notability criteria for musicians. I wish him well in his future career, but it hasn't even begun to reach a state where there should be an encyclopedia article about him. Voceditenore (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP with no reliable sources, no supported claim of notability, no claim satisfying wp:music. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Star Trek XII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Film fails WP:NFF. At the moment the information can be sufficiently covered at the Star Trek page. No cast is confirmed, no director is confirmed and no title is confirmed. I tried leaving it as a redirect but the creator is being stubborn. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral While it is true the information can be summarized at the franchise article, it could also be argued that it could be too much for a section. I've tried cleaning this article a little, but as you said, there's no confirmed cast nor director. I must also note that numerous cast members have discussed the sequel and their hopes, as has the head of Viacom. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Trek. The only information about this movie (which doesn't even have a name yet, I've also heard the head of Paramount call it "Star Trek 2") is the writers and director. The script isn't even written, yet alone any kind of production started. TJ Spyke 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NFF - I quote "While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I also believe that WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH apply here. The whole reason I created this article was because I came here looking for information on the sequel and there was nothing to be found. Although there is no confirmed cast or director, there is a production team, a screenwriter and a projected release date. A sizeable article (with citations, I might add), has been created and no doubt there will be plenty more information to add in the coming weeks and months. Also, with the current high visibility of the new Star Trek film and the fame of Star Trek in general, I would argue that this is certainly a notable topic. Daskill (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a speedy deletion. You misunderstand the process. There is no director, there is no cast, there is no start date, there is no release date. The fact that you can google Star Trek sequel and find some citations given that the current film has made a couple of hundred million dollars is not a surprise, but those links are nothing but rumours, other than confirming Orci and Kurtzman. The most reliable source, Variety doesn't even give any dates. If fails the test for notability, and the name will not be Star Trek XII as the current film isn't called Star Trek XI, and no ST films have carried a number since VI. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't misunderstand the process. I know this is not a speedy deletion, but I think you're missing the spirit of the rule. There's no point in deleting perfectly good, verifiable information just to blindly and rigidly adhere to Wikipedia guidlines. As for your quibble about the name, if you don't think it's appropriate, start a discussion on the talk page and we can pick a more suitable name. Daskill (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When I made it a redirect I sent you to NFF, then I posted on your talkpage about NFF, then I stated NFF as the reason for this AfD, I'm very familiar with NFF. To suggest that by following NFF I am "blindly and rigidly" adhering to some rule despite anything else fails to actually address what the point of NFF is, which is to determine notability. The subject of this article is not notable enough at this moment to justify an article, it is that simple. I'm not going to start a discussion about the title for a film which doesn't even have a script, director or actors. There is no point picking a more suitable name for a film which is at least a year to 18 months away from actually being a tangible thing. You suggest IAR and DEMOLISH apply when they don't, if an subject doesn't meet notability guidelines then it can't have an article, it is as simple as that. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't use a guideline for speedy deletions when it's not a speedy deletion discussion. This article fails actual movie guidelines. The only confirmed information are the writers, everything else is just rumors and speculation. TJ Spyke 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It put it in slightly less bureaucratic terms, the rule you're talking about is intended to encourage this discussion before deletion, not completely negate it. Rather than a single admin deleting the page out of hand ("speedy deletion"), such pages should be brought to the community to decide their encyclopedia quality (what we're doing here). Now is the time to make the case for the encyclopedic quality - or lack thereof - of this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:HAMMERTIME sums this up perfectly. It is inevitable another Star Trek movie will be made, let the article wait until there is more than a few names of wanted cast and crew. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HAMMER covers it nicely. Redirect this to Star Trek (although deleting it as an unlikely title is fine too), since it's obvious that this will be made but there's essentially zero info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. WP:NFF applies and counsels a redirect until principle photography starts. Sure, we could ignore the rule but there's no reason to until there is too much verifiable, encyclopedic content to include in the series article. I'd consider this a plausible redirect, as the continued sequence is often referenced in fan discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People coming to Wikipedia will expect and look for an article on the next Star Trek film and information on the film will no doubt be fast and forthcoming. Why bother deleting this article only to create a new one later? The next film is inevitable. I do agree on the name of the article needing to be changed, though. MegabyteModem (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) {— MegabyteModem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Redirect to 11, and a sequel section. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & salt: until there is more confirmation of credentials. C'mon everyone you know this hugely violates the rules we have on upcoming films. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Trek for now. Waaaaay to early to have a page, especially since there is little to no real information on the film yet. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Stop, Hammertime. -- Aatrek / TALK 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect, I don't care which. Sourced or not, it's all just vague speculation and far too early to be writing an article. Per WP:NFF we shouldn't have a standalone article until the film goes into production. PC78 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future, this is what the "Untitled sequel" link in Star Trek (film)'s infobox already does. Obviously no objections to recreation once principle photography begins per WP:NFF. BryanG (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. WP:NFF is a very good guideline to use, and I see no reason to disregard it in this case. Once filming starts spin it out again. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP per WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be enough sourced info on the upcoming film. The only problem is the title. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the complete lack of any content, and the lack of a cast, or a director and sources with both say Shatner is in the next film and say that he refuses to be in the next film. And that we have a policy about future films, which this article does not meet. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMPLETE lack of ANY content? I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. Daskill (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future as suggested by BryanG. No script, cast, director, or title? There seems to be as much information as for Star Trek XIII, XIV, etc. 2help (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think that's fair. There is much more information on Star Trek 12 than there is on 13 or 14; namely, we know this one exists, we know who's writing, who's producing, who is contractually obliged to appear, naming convention etc. etc. Daskill (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is exactly enough information to fit in the Star Trek future section, that is that it has been greenlit, and has two writers, that is all. Not enough for a separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete the page, I leave it up to the participants in the debate to decide on the article's talk page if the article should be redirected, merged, or otherwise repurposed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Criticism of the term Latino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete this isn't an article but rather an essay written to push a POV. It contains original research and in particular violates WP:SYN in that it uses sources solely to push a POV. Jersey Devil (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One-sided POV fork. Anything that is useful should be moved to Latino. Will Beback talk 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What parts are useful and what aren't? If any of it is useful then the article should be cleaned up/merged/redirected/moved/etc, not deleted. ZabMilenko 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion over the existence of an article under that title, not about the contents. Merging is fine, but I don't think we need to retain the title as a redirect. Will Beback talk 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE says (in bold even) "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Normal editing does in fact include moving/renaming which anybody can do. ZabMilenko 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suggesting that we delete the title and move any good material to whatever existing article seems appropriate, most likely Latino. I don't think it can be fixed in the current title, and I don't see a need to have a separate article on this topic. That's just my opinion. Will Beback talk 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The difficulty of choosing which "term" is "correct" is problematic enough to deserve research by the white house (per one of the refs). Whether or not it fails WP:SYN is iffy because the refs are hard to check. ZabMilenko 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: my last edit summary was wrong, hit down arrow key one too many times on autocomplete. ZabMilenko 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and repurpose. It has obvious POV issues, but I think there is also much good material that could be repurposed into a Names of Latin Americans article, to be modeled on the Native American name controversy and Names of Syriac Christians articles.--Pharos (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and repurpose. As I see many people feel the article as biased which is not. There is no single original research since everything has a source and quotations. What I propose is to remove the last quotation which is pretty redundant and to change the name to either Latino/Hispanic naming controversy (belonging to the naming controversies category) or like Pharos says Names of Latin Americans.--Scandza (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. This article was solely created to enforce the creators opinion on people. He actually compares the word Latino to the word Nigger! A search for the articles "Praise of the term Latino", "Critisism of the word Hispanic", "Praise of the term Hispanic" and similarly a quick search of other ethnic groups with related articles such as "Criticism of the word African American" returns no results. Both the praise and criticism for both terms are effectively covered on pages such as Latino, Latin American, Hispanic, Latino American, Hispanic American. etc. This soapbox must be deleted. CartelCacique (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy above is very passionate and doesn't provide hard proofs that the article is biased as he says. I challenge him to find any single phrase that is not sustained by genuine sources. As for the perceived WP:SYN violations I have to accept that the first versions were unbalanced and maybe forced. I changed and improved many things and I included enough external links to major newspapers and other websites. Like I said before the article could be repurposed into a different article covering the criticism of both the Hispanic and Latino ethnonyms.--Scandza (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge The references and external links indicates that "the criticism of the term Latino" is not original research or the opinion of one user. Merging the article is a good idea, but for that we must preserve the information, removing any POV or original research. --Jmundo 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge back to Latino. Clearly there are differences of opinion about the use of this word. Both sides should be covered in one article for fairness. There is no article "Support for the the term Latino." Northwestgnome (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Eurovision Song Contest 2009. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Commentators for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yet more Eurovision cruft. That someone happened to do a TV commentary on one edition of Eurovision in one country is not a particularly notable intersection. Biruitorul Talk 23:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge into Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (which already has various subarticles due to its size) because of the information it provides would probably be interesting to someone researching the extremely notable Eurovision Song Contest, but mainly because calling cruft in the afd nomination is an WP:ATA. ZabMilenko 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the information into the relevant country's page (e.g. Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009) - largely as a result of this discussion almost a year ago. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mustafa Ülgen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment : Several editors apparently felt that this person is not notable enough. The prod was removed and then replaced, therefore I have listed this for a deletion dicussion. Personally I have no opinion on this. Passportguy (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of impact of acheivements of this worthy dentist. Structure of article as a CV and publication list is quite unsuitable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I just wanted to note that usually be allow all university professors their own page on here, as that status alone is considered an indication of notability. I'm not quite sure why this person should be an exception. Passportguy (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May be I should have put this as a draft, I am quite new here. What I don't understand is a Turkish Pop Singer and her/his albums that the world doesn't know about is notable enough to be in wikipedia, but an honourable Scientist, a Dentist that made big achievements in Orthodontics in Turkey can be not notable enough for wikipedia. Mustafa Ulgen unfortunately is not a product of pop culture, but I thought this didn't make him less notable. I believe Mustafa Ulgen is an important person for anyone who would like to know/understand Dentistry/Orthodontics in Turkey. This article may not have enough about him, but I hope that in the future other people can add more.Alpsays (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- It should be noted that the subject of the article is the father of Alpsays, see User talk:RadioFan. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- "usually be allow all university professors their own page on here", no, generally we only allow University Professors that pass WP:PROF to have pages, and I think that is generally thought to be less than "most" of them, let alone "all". Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete If WP:PROF is the standard I don't understand what is all the fuss about. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ulgen (4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.) His E-Books are read all over Turkey for dentistry education http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.dentistry.ankara.edu.tr%2Fkutuphane.html&sl=tr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.),(6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.) He was a dean for two years in the University of Tigris ( Dicle ) Diyarbakır http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=https%3A%2F%2Frp.liu233w.com%3A443%2Fhttp%2Fwww.dicle.edu.tr%2Ffakulte%2Fdis%2Fyonetim.htm&sl=tr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Please check the section where it says "UNIVERSITY FACULTY DİCLE the establishment SOON dental work of the DEAN" The Correct Translation is The Dean's of University Faculty Dicle from its establishment to it's day Alpsays (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep for limited period, to allow a chance for improvement. I think that good faith should be presumed with respect to the conflict of interest mentioned above. The article does not follow the usual style for a biography stub, which I think is what it would be if pruned and tidied, but that is not a reason to delete out-of-hand by itself. Experienced Wiki editors should help Alpsays with this article, and that would also allow some independence. Not my area, I'm afraid, but any volunteers? A.C. Norman (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately there is a conflict of interest to contend with here as well, the creator of this article is the professor's son (see my talk page). While the subject is likely notable, there isn't anything in this CV-like article worth saving and it should be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The links above would seem to show that the subject passes WP:PROF. The article can easily fixed by a bit of copyediting and cutting the list of publications to just the most important ones. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete, but simply for other editors to review content for neutrality - I, for one, have this on my watchlist now so I can help out with this. COI is also much less of a problem when it is disclosed. Dentists might not be as exciting as TV talent show contestants but it is possible to write encyclopedia articles about them. Just a couple of weeks ago I found an article tagged for deletion whose entire prose content was "Sheldon Friel was an Irish dentist" but I think (blowing my own trumpet) that I managed to turn it into a pretty decent start-class article. The only things stopping me from doing the same with this one are physical and linguistic access to sources - I doubt whether any of the sources for this subject would be available in my local library and even if they were I wouldn't be able to read them. The point of the additional notablity criteria such as WP:PROF is that they are strong indicators that reliable sources exist, even if they are not online and in English. We already have enough sources for verifiability of the main facts in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The main tests I could see applying here are WP:PROF criteria 1 and/or 4. His textbook would seem to claim #4, but I'm not in a position to judge its impact. However, his publication record looks insufficient for #1. Web of Science, liberally searching on "Author=(ulgen m*), Refined by: Subject Areas=(DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE)", lists 4 publications, all from Am. J. Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthoped., having 12, 10, 5, and 5 citations respectively. Note that this article lists a veritable boatload of other publications (some of which seem to be various editions of his textbook). Most of the "journal articles" are from "Faculty of Dentistry Magazine" from several different universities – these are almost certainly not peer-reviewed research publications. Likely ditto for "Pedodontics Magazine". Roughly a dozen other articles from "Turkish Journal of Orthodontics", but it is unclear whether this is a standard research journal for the profession. Answer seems to be in the nagative, since it is not in the list of over 50 dental journals indexed by WoS (J. Dent. Res., J. Endodontics, J. Clin. Peridontology, etc.). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. As Phil Bridger points out that with a bit of help this could become a start-class article. It just needs to be polished a bit. Jarkeld (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. His argument goes mainly to WP:V, but that's not the issue here. Rather, as Xxanthippe points out above, the question is whether this individual meets WP:PROF. The argument that somehow the latter is simply a proxy of the former ("the point of the additional notablity criteria such as WP:PROF is that they are strong indicators that reliable sources exist") is incorrect. There are lots of people for whom verifiable sources exist, but who are nevertheless not sufficiently notable for WP. For example, think of your average local politician or news reporter. The two considerations should not be confused with one another. Finally, the links Phil refers to above basically just confirm he's a faculty member – nice for WP:V, but these don't offer any further support toward WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Per Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Phil Bridger makes valid points, but the subject is not at the same level of notability as Sheldon Friel.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The usual standard for researchers under WP:PROF is that research is an international activity, and international standards apply. If so, he might not qualify as a researcher. There are 15 papers of his in Pubmed (search for Ulgen M limited to the dental journals subset. although none of the Turkish journals he published in are included there, the German ones are as well as the American. Only the American ones are however in WoS; they are in a major journal, and have 12, 10, 5, 5 citations. Scopus as expected covers more of the journals, including 5 articles in turkish; unfortunately, it does not cover reliably back to the years of his major work. I do not have access to Excerpta Medica, which probably covers some more of them. This is not a distinguished record, but it is sufficient to show national impact--and in an applied subject like this, I think that to some degree it might be more appropriate to take national standards into account. In any case, the publication of multiple reviews and textbooks, and the apparent Deanship of a Dental school, is enough to show an impact as an educator in his field. I am not concerned about WP:V, because the key papers can be verified easily enough. What I am concerned about is ethnocentric bias on our part and the indexes. Even when a citation index covers a few major journals in a third world country, it does not cover the many journals there that would cite them; for English journals, it does cover such titles. The results are thus never comparable. DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While your observation is correct, it is also why "third-world" authors do strive to publish in western journals. As far as I know, these journals do not have any systematic ethnocentric biases – if the work is notable it gets published. You could always reason one step further, saying that being in a third world country affects one's ability to do notable research, but I would say that this would digress too far for our present purposes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. When we are talking about third world countries we would like to mention them as developing countries. I would like to stress one point not only for this article, but for articles/ persons in general on Wikipedia as one might say Wikipedia International. If you set one standard for everyone what you will see on the International Wikipedia is there won't be any diversity (It would be Western World's Wikipedia). Therefore it is not right to use a standard set for first world countries to understand the history and development of a developing country's major field/fields. It won't be the right way of calculating the impact/notability. This would not be rational. What I am trying to say with Mustafa Ulgen is, here is a person that had done some significant impact on his country's orthodontics. He hasn't re-invented the wheel nor he hasn't got a significant impact on the international basis, but the book he has published first on 1983 Principles of Orthodontics Treatment is the first comprehensive book on Orthodontics in Turkish and for two decades and a half it is still the only book in the Turkish Language the students of dentistry study from (various editions of this book, 7th being the last edition, proves the point). Moreover the teachings he learned at Zurich he brought them to Turkey and thought what he has learned throughout his career. And when comes to his publications in Turkish Journals, they are the most reputable universities in Turkey (thus you shouldn't undermine he has 14 publications in western Journals). I can not put all of the facts because of the neutral point of view, what i am hoping for is in the future this entry will develop by others. At the moment in time the only reference I can find is from Who's Who in Turkey which is limited with what I have put in the entry and I am not sure if that is enough. I found out that he is in the Inegol village museum, but I need to check the full details. I need help on the index, I didn't know whether I was suppose to translate the subjects of the Turkish articles into English or what would be the right way of showing them.--Alpsays (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm confused, is this person known for his technical contributions to the field of dentistry or is he known for the translation of existing texts or techniques into Turkish? Is he known internationally? There is still only a single reference in this article so coverage in 3rd party sources has yet to be established here. --RadioFan (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No he is not known internationally. His impact was to his country. I'm not in the field so I can't really give a substantial answer to his technical contributions nor research. He is important for his teachings in his field, shared his knowledge (training/findings) and expertise to his country. He brought the western Orthodontics and latest developments in his field from Zurich which was ahead of many places at the time like London. He went to London to practice their techniques as well and find out they were behind Zurich, so he ended up giving his first conference at 1974 in University College Hospital Medical School of University of London Dental School and left. He is also a researcher, but I don't know the impact of his researches in the field nor whether he has invented a new technique. For the later, I don't think he has. As a result I tried to keep the biography to minimum basics. Knowledge is as valuable as gold. Sometimes so little can have so much impact. It is hard to imagine if you are not in a developing country. I really don't mind if you want to delete this entry. I will just put it in to a blog on the internet and get on with it. Initially I would like to put this article to Turkish Wikipedia. It is more likely that his students and people know him could develop this article further over there, but the Turkish Wikipedia is under a fascistic regime, they have erased the entry within the first couple of hours I put it up without any reason or discussion. They haven't given me the chance to develop the entry further as happened on this free platform. At the end of the day this is a voluntary work and everybody deserves respect for their time and work they put in. I appreciate everybody's comments and good will here. I wouldn't like to occupy anybodies time further. I didn't know how much work went into this live project before. Keep up the good work, my heart is with all of you.--Alpsays (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Urimai Kural (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - Urimai Kural is not an officially announced film and it was very very recently suggested through out the media. There is no official word about the film or its cast. Most of the information written on this article has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. This article should be deleted until such a film has officially begun filming or "inaugrated" (i.e. a film puja). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelamstylez77 (talk • contribs) ) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. It looks well sourced, but the sources don't support any of the main facts. The film is not yet announced, and principal photography has not yet begun (if it ever will), it was not covered by reliable sources. Fails WP:NFF. Amalthea 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per notability requirements for films, films generally needs have reliable sources indicating the film is in principal photography stage before getting an article - in this this case the text claims that the film is in "home production". It appears doubful that "home production" is the actual filming of the movie, but it is impossible to verify because the claimed source is a dead link. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Film doesn't meet notability requirements, as it is at most in pre-production.Tyrenon (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Delete: The page is managed and poorly created by a blocked user, who fantasizes to create his own opinions into films. The original puppet, User:Thulasi12345 has been indefinitely banned, and this avatar has carried out scarily similiar edits preaching similiar views. Universal Hero (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FALSE OPINION: I'm not the user your saying and I don't fantasizes. Enough with your idiot balmes on me just to make yourself so clever and popular. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular? Who finds me popular? Actually, who here find me clever :) ? Universal Hero (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:World Cinema Writer sure does. :P Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Popular? Who finds me popular? Actually, who here find me clever :) ? Universal Hero (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable as a film yet. Hekerui (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cypher transcoder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a promotional article of a software. From the edit history, it is apparent that the article was mostly written by the CEO of the software company, User:Sdmonroe. From google search, there is a lack of third-party sources to indicate that the software has been used by others or acknowledged in notable science/technology literature. Vsion (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete . Per nom.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Google search for "Cypher transcoder" Monrai -wiki shows no indications of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. One two three... 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of G rated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnecessary list that cannot be maintained. Mblumber (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails list guidelines, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and too American-centric. Could have sworn this one was deleted before, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R rated movies, but can't find one under a similar name so not speediable right now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Someone worked very hard on making this list, but it's badly done and unsourced -- it Grated on my nerves. Not beyond rescue, but if you want to improve it-- (a) Sources. No, it's not enough to say mpaa.org and imdb.com are your links. and (b) Lose the films that were released before there was an MPAA rating. Do you plan to list every single film from the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Some films, of course, were re-released theatrically from the mythical "Disney vault", but gimme a break. Contrary to popular belief, lots of "G" rated films are marketed every year, and have been since the late 1960s. In this case, I'd do my imitation of a category evangelist ("Categories are the only way to eternal navigation!") but surprisingly, there's no category for "G-rated films", although articles usually have more tags than a camper's suitcase. Mandsford (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the reason there aren't films by rating categories is because there are so many different ratings systems in so many different countries that categorizing films on that basis would lead to category clutter. Films are also released in multiple formats with multiple ratings and can be resubmitted to the MPAA or other rating board for re-rating for a re-release. I have no particular opinion on this list but if kept it should be renamed to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No matter how long it gets, if it is limited to films with WP articles where the articles document the ratings. I agree with Mandsford that films before the ratings system should not be included. Appropriate for a category also. I do not understand "category clutter" as we can include categories for as many rating systems as we have documentation for. Neither our articles nor our categories are PAPER. If the list is not done adequately, there is a simple solution. DGG (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:Overcategorization: Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter". Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.) I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--there are probably an average of two or three new G-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with those sorts of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. Are we really using arguments about categories as justification for deleting lists? If there is a legitimate issue with the article's title, consider renaming to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America which could not be any clearer. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. - You hit the wrong keep macro. Otto4711 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Guilty as charged. Make that "list". Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sorting of titles beginning with "The" under the letter T suggests this was some kind of datadump rather than a manually constructed list. Ideally, the list should be made sortable both by title and by year, and should be annotated with whether the rating was established upon a re-release or whatever (but I doubt there were many director's cuts of G-rated films). Complaining that the list is American-centric is rather beside the point because it's a list about an American rating system, which can of course be clarified in the title. I personally don't see the value of compiling such a list, but nor do I see a reason why it shouldn't exist, and all of these issues are matters for clean-up, not deletion. Postdlf (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for same reasons as PG-rated films Bulldog123 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete G4. Amalthea 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hot 100 Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as CSD G4 repost Obviously a WP:BADCHART with very little authority in Brazil. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael de bono (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article claims some notability, however a Googl search does not turn up much and from the article i would say that he doesn't have enough notability to be included. Passportguy (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Appears to be a young artist starting out, with little evidence of notability thus far. 99.168.86.206 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I was considering tagging this myself but didn't per WP:BITE.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakdelete. Fails WP:ARTIST because his work has not been a substantial part of any of the exhibits listed on the page(the question of which quantity is taken as "substantial" still remains). ZabMilenko 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- NOTE: His name seems to appear as Michael Debono at this ref. ZabMilenko 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Angels Working Overtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Song did chart but only got to #35. Precedent among other country music articles is that most country songs that peaked below #20 should not get articles unless they prove exceptional notability beyond being by a notable artist. This article does not assert any form of notability beyond "it charted for a very brief period in 1999", and the only sources are a chart history and a link to the song's music video via CMT. What little verifiable content exists could easily be merged to the album. The article was initially unsourced so I redirected it, but the author undid the redirect and promised the addition of sources, which amounted to the two I already mentioned and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Everything's Gonna Be Alright. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as information would not fit with the content of an album page. Radio edit time and difference between the album version, info about the song's tempo and production, and the purpose of the song would not be at home on another page. As would a music video description; which includes director, backs up the song content, and the link to the video. The page is not a stub in anyway - as all that is missing is something in critical reception of the song. And I'm not sure how exactly you expect to reference any of the other information given (other than chart peak, and the video link); are people unable to watch the music video for themselves or listen to the song? I was able to pump more into this particular song than some of her more successful songs, such as "We Danced Anyway" which remains a stub. If there's enough info to keep this song from remaining a stub, and enough significant info to not fit with an album or artist page, then I think it should stay. Really the chart performance is only one of many factors - not being a popular hit on the charts doesn't discredit this song from featuring specific information. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is not a stub, and it has more sourced information than most song articles. Chart positions should not determine notability.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets notability requirement by virtue of charting; enough information exists for a sibstantial article. Rlendog (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily delete. BencherliteTalk 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Audrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Cannot find any confirmation this is an existing project. No g-hits that seem relevant and the Nick site doesn't list it (though that site is a mess to navigate). Page history is also not encouraging. Matt Deres (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: This is totally a hoax. Spam, vandalism and test page. "It was released Christmas 2010" ARE YOU SERIOUS! hasn't even happened yet. I have put up a CSD three times and it is always being removed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Article creator has been indefinitely blocked, and it seems very unlikely that Nickelodeon would ever air anything about Audrey Hepburn. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily delete. BencherliteTalk 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Skalite (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school band. Not signed to a label, no releases, etc. CSD was contested, so bringing here. Matt Deres (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill it with fire Obvious speedy (A7), school band, no coverage, no releases, play covers at their "friends' party". Very cute. Fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC. Exterminate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Return Of The Stix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Demo tape from non-notable band. Does not pass WP:Music. Contested PROD with no improvement and no reason given. Unsourced. Wperdue (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A9 Band article already tagged for A7, so once the band's page is gone this will qualify under A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as a hoax. Normally I would not use the G3 criterion to delete a possible hoax listed at AfD. However, the complete lack of Ghits and evidence from others below make this a clear case. Jamie☆S93 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Urinetzé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Short article lacking verifiability. Strange written too. Highest Heights (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, mountains are typically considered notable, but this sounds like a hoax: since when do you have mountains less than 100 metres tall? I can imagine people on a seacoast calling something of this height a mountain, but in the mountainous region where this is located, everything is higher than 93 metres. Provide sources and cleanup and I'd be willing to reconsider, but at this point I can't imagine how such could be done. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is a hoax. Slovene alphabet doesn't even have the "é" character and Kobarid itself lies 235.3 m above the sea level (not to mention how strange it would be to have a mountain - or even more of them if that one is the highest - inside of a town). --Yerpo (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Janisterzaj (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:PROF can be a bit confusing if one is unfamiliar with the means we use to assess academic notability, but the consensus here is very clear. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbara Ramsay Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:PROF. Criterion 5, being a Distinguished Professor was inappropriately cited as a reason to deprod, since half of all professors at Duke are (also inappropriately) called Distinguished, as Wikipedia's own article states. Regular Google Scholar/Book/News searching doesn't turn up enough to justify an article. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is another of those "who cares" articles. What makes her diferent from the thousands of other professors in the US alone? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Distinguished Professor, named chair. Top GS cites 314, 147, 141 .. The up to "half of all" in this article refers to Harvard Business School, not Duke, and I see no evidence that that Duke calls that large a proportion "distinguished." In any case, Duke (and HBS) are first rate universities. Someone judged more prominent than the average Duke or Harvard BS professor would usually be thought to be quite notable in their field - the "who" that cares is the consensus here to accept such consenses among a professor's knowledgeable peers as proof of notability.John Z (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article makes no real claim of notability, who cares about prestige? Prestige isn't notability, and notability is not inherited from the institution. This sounds like pure elitism. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google Scholar gives h index of 25, good for an early career researcher. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- As one can see in this older version of Wikipedia's article on the h-index, 25 isn't very high, and there are professors with much higher h-indices who don't have articles. Again, what can you point out about this person that is notable? No secondary sources are provided. WP:PROF was designed to keep articles about professors off of Wikipedia, not as a justification for keeping articles on Wikipedia. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That h-index is large enough for WP notability, even in the discipline of physics. In non-science fields, that h-index would be very large, since many journals would be excluded. For example, one of the most heavily cited researchers in the field of management, with over 2,000 Google Scholar citations to a single article, among others, has an h-index of 6. Also, in some specialized and citation-sparse fields, that h-index would be extremely high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that the h index, like other bibliometric measures, is only one factor to be used with care in assessing impact of scholarship. The reservations associated with it are discussed in the article. I quote from the article h index "Hirsch suggested that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10-12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions at major research universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences." Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- My concern is that people argue using WP:PROF as a substitute for notability. Notability is a lower bound beneath which an article should not exist. WP:PROF is intended to be a higher lower bound than notability. I believe that Dr Shaw falls below the notability threshold, so it doesn't matter that she meets one of the criterion of WP:PROF. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide evidence of that interpretation? It says:
- "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant."
- Hobit (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide evidence of that interpretation? It says:
- My concern is that people argue using WP:PROF as a substitute for notability. Notability is a lower bound beneath which an article should not exist. WP:PROF is intended to be a higher lower bound than notability. I believe that Dr Shaw falls below the notability threshold, so it doesn't matter that she meets one of the criterion of WP:PROF. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. It's hard to imagine anyone non-notable getting an appointment at this level at a major university Surely, this can be rescued. - Vartanza (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The burden of proof falls on those who argue to keep; do you have any secondary sources that demonstrate notability? Because I can imagine someone non-notable getting an appointment at this level at a major university. Joey the Mango (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No such thing as a burden of proof on Wikipedia. It's a collaborative project, and we should all try to determine whether including this article improved Wikipedia or not. You seem to have checked enough before you nominated, so I don't mean to criticize you in general. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof falls on those who argue to keep; do you have any secondary sources that demonstrate notability? Because I can imagine someone non-notable getting an appointment at this level at a major university. Joey the Mango (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr050009p makes her appear notable. We need sources though. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a primary scientific article for which she happens to be an author. How does that make her appear notable? Joey the Mango (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a slam-dunk on WP:PROF criterion #1, as any minimal checking would have found. Some journal pubs from Web of Science: Biochem. (1990) 201 citations, Pharma. Res. (2002) 137 citations, Toxicol. & Appl. Pharmacol. (1982) 129 citations, Biochem. Pharma. (2000) 114 citations, and the list goes on. Given her very notable publication record, her position, etc., it is likely she meets other criteria too, but these would just be incidental and not necessary to check for the discussion here. Glaringly notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Incredible that WP:PROF is being abused in this way. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? Please explain. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- One of my edits got lost somehow; it said: How does having some citations--admittedly good for her career--prove that "[t]he person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? Joey the Mango (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, no secondary source says "Dr Shaw has made significant impact to the understanding of X". A list of citations is nice, but it is original research to infer that she has "made significant impact". Joey the Mango (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way that the system of academic research works, and particularly in the field of this LP, is by incremental advances on established knowledge. The convention universally followed in the research community is that the authors of a paper cite the previous work of relevance that has led up to their own work. Accordingly, each cite is evidence of impact on the scholarly discipline. If a paper has a lot of cites this amounts to significant impact. If a paper gets no cites then it is less likely to have made much impact. There are problems of assessing the individual contributions from papers with multiple authorship and this has to be judged by the accumulation of evidence. Of course there are other measures of impact such as distinguished appointments, patents, prizes etc. These are discussed at length in WP:PROF. The above is a sketch of the system and there are many subtleties. However, I hope it helps a bit. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- So no significant impact, then? Joey the Mango (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The way that the system of academic research works, and particularly in the field of this LP, is by incremental advances on established knowledge. The convention universally followed in the research community is that the authors of a paper cite the previous work of relevance that has led up to their own work. Accordingly, each cite is evidence of impact on the scholarly discipline. If a paper has a lot of cites this amounts to significant impact. If a paper gets no cites then it is less likely to have made much impact. There are problems of assessing the individual contributions from papers with multiple authorship and this has to be judged by the accumulation of evidence. Of course there are other measures of impact such as distinguished appointments, patents, prizes etc. These are discussed at length in WP:PROF. The above is a sketch of the system and there are many subtleties. However, I hope it helps a bit. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Your edits for this case suggest that you do not really understand the vetting process by which hard-science scholarship at research universities is judged, and by extension, the well-established precedents which are used here to evaluate articles with respect to WP:PROF. You obviously don't accept Xxanthippe's very clear (in my opinion) explanation, so please allow me to take a crack at it. The simple fact of the matter is this. When researcher A uses results/ideas/methods/observations/etc of researcher B (i.e. "builds upon the work of B", "B has influenced the new work of A" – however you might want to think about it), that fact typically manifests itself as a citation to B's paper. The citation count is the most realistic indicator of the impact of B's work. Admittedly not perfect, it sometimes under-represents the impact, because A might use B's results without citing (which can lead to priority disputes). Within academic circles, this person's research record (oodles of papers with >100 citations each) is considered quite impressive – most researchers do not reach such a level. And, with respect to WP:V, these citations are the independent sources. Indeed, we do not need someone to look at these for us and then proclaim "ah, she is notable and has an impact on her field", as you seem to want. This would be fine, but is entirely unnecessary. So, yes, her work has had a very conspicuous impact on her field – no ambiguity at all here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- In what way? Please explain. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. WP:PROF sets a high bar, and she hasn't met it. Just having a certain number of hits in Google scholar of a few journal publications isn't enough - it has to be shown, through reliable independent sources, that the academic's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," and I don't see even any assertion of that, let alone proof. (I do realise that that is only one of several possible criteria listed at WP:PROF, it's just that it seems to be the only one that might apply.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please see my immediately preceding post. Your flippant assertion of "a few journal publications" is off the mark here and suggests you are willfully looking past the actual significance of this person's research record. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. As noted by John Z, meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment). Very likely meets other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite the nominator's refusal to accept this, she clearly passes WP:PROF #1 and #5, either one of which would be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'll second that. WP:PROF is a guideline agreed by consensus. The nominator, or anyone else who disagrees with it, should discuss the matter at its talk page rather than claim that it shouldn't apply to one article when it has been accepted by numerous Afd discussions to be a guideline for inclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a guideline for disclusion; it cannot override the policy of notability for inclusion. I note that of the keep notvoters have addressed this. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, no... have you tried actually reading WP:PROF? Where do you get the idea that it's for "disclusion"(sic) (I think you mean "exclusion")? The first sentence under the heading "criteria" says, "if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable", and then criterion 5 says, "the person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". The only possible room for doubt is whether you consider Duke University to be "a major institution of higher education and research". Do you seriously dispute that? And where do you get the idea that notability is a policy, rather than a guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding of the reason WP:PROF was created was to increase the difficulty of having articles on professors on Wikipedia above and beyond WP:N. I was not aware that WP:N was not a guideline; I'm sure that is political, since it functions as a policy. I am not saying that WP:PROF is wrong to list Distinguished Professordom as evidence, I'm saying that this professor, in spite of her title, has not actually done anything notable, as evidenced by the lack of any secondary sourcing which could tell us what that might be. Would you support someone going through university websites and creating a directory-like article on Wikipedia for every Distinguished Professor found in every "major institution"? Joey the Mango (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are over 300 secondary sources listed in a Google scholar search that say what she has done in her most well-cited paper, and nearly 150 secondary sources for her second most-cited paper. It's in that sense that WP:PROF is more strict than WP:BIO or WP:N: nearly every published academic will have multiple reliable third parties citing them, but we require much larger numbers of citations than the "multiple sources" required by WP:N to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:PROF, or we require other types of reliable sources for the other criteria. It's in that sense that WP:PROF is stronger than WP:BIO, and despite being a more stringent test it is clear that Shaw passes it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see; you are saying that being cited is notability. Are any of these in review papers? That would count as secondary sources. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, some of them are, but I don't think that's such an important distinction the better question is: how many of these other papers say something nontrivial about her work, as opposed to a trivial mention among a list of other prior research? I don't know. A little searching found, for instance, DOI:10.1016/0027-5107(95)00104-2, which has a whole ten-line paragraph specifically about her work: "Barbara Ramsay Shaw, in addressing the mutation of DNA in vitro, tested the hypothesis that a cytosine which is mispaired (or is a neighbor of a mispaired base or is situated in a distorted helix) thus may be protonated and thereby deaminate more frequently than a normal cytosine in normal DNA. Her experiments were consistent with this hypothesis, thereby giving a reasonable solution to this apparent violation of the rule of independence of formation of individual mutational lesions." That's enough to count as nontrivial in my eyes. But most of the hundreds of citations are going to be trivial, so finding the nontrivial ones is difficult without spending a lot of time and effort (and access to a university library) reading all the references; citation counting gives us an acceptably accurate way of avoiding all that work in deletion discussions, allowing us to spend the rest of our Wikipedia-editing time in more constructive pursuits. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If her article was more than two sentences long I might be inclined to agree with "citation counting gives us an acceptably accurate way of avoiding all that work..." Many of her papers are about boranophosphates (that article was written by a User:Doclaura who only made that one edit). The word "boranophosphate" itself has an h-index of 21. So I remain unconvinced that my nomination was or is misguided. Dr Shaw got her PhD in 1973, so a body of work with a certain amount of citations is to be expected, but the deafening silence about her impact, as could be demonstrated by review articles saying what the impact of her work was, is disturbing. The link you provide is to an article titled "The 4th International Conference on Mechanisms of Antimutagenesis and Anticarcinogenesis: A summary", which doesn't seem legit at all. Do you at least see my point? Joey the Mango (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The word 'boranophosphate' itself has an h-index of 21." What do you mean by this? How did you arrive at the number 21? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- From the h-index article: “… a scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been cited by others at least h times”. Given this definition, to say that a word has an h-index makes no sense.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it does, it proceeds by the same line of reasoning; the penetration of the topic into the literature. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something I like to do in this sort of AfD when I can get a specific idea of the subject's expertise is to search for that keyword and see how highly the subject's papers rank. Joey's h-index calculation for boranophosphates shows that they're clearly notable (the subject of some 1650 papers in Google scholar) despite the badness of our article on the subject. But the Google scholar search for boranophosphates returns Shaw's papers as its top five hits. So clearly, she is the top expert in an important subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to WP:PROF under whose criteria this article is being evaluated. In particular, s/he seems incapable of accepting/understanding that (a) Prof. Shaw's research has had a glaringly obvious impact on her field, as evidenced by numerous highly-cited papers, (b) academic governing bodies, even at the highest-ranking institutions, accept precisely this sort of evidence as proof of the notability of one's scholarship, in fact it is essentially the necessary and sufficient condition in the hard sciences (in which the subject works), (c) they do not consider any sort of outside validation to be necessary for judging scholarship impact/notability, e.g. mention in the popular media, in review papers, in non-technical publications, in news or trade magazines, or anything else the nom might claim is necessary, (d) WP has a long, established history of reasoning the notability of professor-type articles along these same lines because there does not appear to be a more objective way of doing so, and (e) there's no reason to insist we should now adopt a wildly different standard for this article alone. (2) This discussion is ripe with WP:IDHT, suggesting WP:NPOV concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time (e.g. we now have to demonstrate that the H-index is not defined for "words", see Eric Yurken's entry above), but you are of course free to do so. (3) As to the merits of the article itself, multiple commentators here have already demonstrated satisfaction of at least criteria #1 and #5 in WP:PROF. Again, feel free to discuss further, but understand that at this point, you're no longer trying to convince the closing moderator. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I endorse the above comments of Agricola44. They should be applied also to other articles this editor has attempted to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- My nomination was in good faith. What I wanted was a debate, not a automatic, numerically-based invocation of the h-index and WP:PROF. David Eppstein was the only one here to engage in such a debate, and for that I am grateful. (Heck, I was the one who went to the trouble of figuring one what she actually worked on, not any of the people here or on the article.) I am familiar with conventions in academia, including a very important one; somebody who got her PhD 36 years ago, and has been on the faculty since the late 70s/early80s, judging from the listings on her lab alumni page, might have been promoted to Distingished Prof as a matter of course. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think anyone here said your nomination was in bad faith. But the notability facts on this person came rolling-in fast and furious – there are some cases that are just very clear-cut. You may not wish to judge merits on the basis of "numbers", but they were overwhelming here. Again, this doesn't reflect badly on you for nominating. As David Eppstein mentioned above, we all feel like there's much WP work to be done, and so we all like to dispose of the "easy" cases quickly. As to your point, I wouldn't say "promoted to Distingished Prof as a matter of course" is the right way to frame this, as it implies that she merely received some sort of "service award". In actuality, these are somewhat special appointments, given usually only to full professors, as special recognition of outstanding scholarship, valuable administration work, etc. – often the underlying (though un-publicized) factor in these appointments is that they serve as incentives to keep the very best profs (most productive, most prolific, etc) right where they're at. It is certainly true that most full professors do not get the "distinguished" title. So, I think it's probably most accurate in this case to presume she was promoted to Distinguished prof because of her notable scholarship. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I agree, it is unlikely that the named chair/ DP is just for time served. I don't think "the reason WP:PROF was created was to increase the difficulty of having articles on professors on Wikipedia above and beyond WP:N." is a good description of practice. The specialized notability guidelines are rather more often than not used to include rather than exclude. WP:N is vague enough that whatever evidence people come up with for passing WP:PROF can be considered as the substantial coverage needed to pass WP:N.John Z (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both for your considered responses. I feel better now, and more confident that the AfD system is functioning properly, and will reach the correct conclusion(s). Joey the Mango (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all full professors at Duke probably do count as notable. Many of them count as distinguished by any criterion. We judge notability of researchers by the impact of their research, and that is judged by citations. She very clearly qualifies. I'm glad we have the opportunity to educate our editors in the way the academic world works, and we should not blame them for their initial lack of knowledge about the standards of the major research universities. Looking numerically, citation counts such as shown here are always a sure indication of notability, as a definitive and objective way of showing influence on the subject DGG (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Triwbe (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adrian Sieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
fails WP:MUSIC. He has released an album independent of this band (a solo release) but I interpret "notability independent of the band" as "would he be notable due to this solo release if we discounted all his work with the band?" The answer is "no". Ironholds (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adrian Sieber has made a solo release. Being on the swiss charter list with his song: The Healing. Lovebugs album, In Every Waking Moment, has been platinum awarded. Sieber wrote all its songs. Musicvideos directed by Simon Ramseier. He has been the main vocalist in Switzerlands most wellknown rockband in 15 years. What more notability do you want? Highest Heights (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have expanded the article a little bit with info taken from german wikipedia. Highest Heights (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdraw charting solo single is certainly a claim of notability. I wasn't informed of this before (and I don't speak French, German and Italian) otherwise I wouldn't have brought this up. Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tan | 39 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coalition's War (Omni Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article on a non-notable fictional war Passportguy (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, maybe even Speedy delete for a total lack of context. Article makes almost no sense at all? I presume it ties to some fictional universe, but it isn't linking to anything...seeming unnotable fictional war of whatever that fictional work is, which apparently isn't that notable either.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A fictional history/setting article on a self-published novel by a non-notable author. More info here and here (note that the publisher is Omni Universe Press, which to date has only published Omni History Begins, the novel to which this article refers). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable book. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:BK. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the remaining articles for this same "series" are now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioforce (Omni Books). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oil and Gas Industry metering and control system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bit of a tagfest going on here. What's the purpose of the page anyway? Presumably, if someone cared a great deal, they could have done better than this incessantly messy page. Shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia in this form, I feel. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you're wondering why I didn't just prod it: I guess that they might be room for an article about the topic, just not this one. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with haste, so overloaded with jargon that it's impenetrable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep per rescue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is our editing policy to improve such articles, not delete them. Having looked at couple of sources upon instrumentation, the matter seems quite notable - such devices are used throught the world's oil and gas fields. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a seemingly knowledgeable person, can I ask you whether it's talking about a specific product here, or a general system that is used throughout the Oil and Gas Industry? The article could really do with some context, and I still have no idea where it fits into the encyclopaedia. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no particular knowledge of this field so I searched for information online. This is what you should have done before bringing this matter here - please see WP:BEFORE for details of the process. As for your question, the article is talking in general terms, not about a specific product. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article now has a reference and many more exist. I don't see any "jargon" in the article, it uses industry standard terms and the intended audience would have no difficulty in understanding the material. I've added a number of wikilinks but it could probably use a few more. Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pointless fork, with heaps of unverified information on a subject that doesn't require this kind of iodsyncratic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is this a fork of? Tothwolf (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable (not sure where others have looked, but google only shows 1 hit for "gas well metering system" and only 4 for it's suggested verion "gas well monitoring system". Also, appears to me to be original research, is more a of a comparison between the two systems rather than an article about a common system. 7 talk | Δ | 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest trying a different search query as that one is not likely to get too many hits. Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided my exact search query. You suggested I pick a different one saying it was likely not to get too many hits, which doesn't help me much considering I already described how few hits it got. The query I used seems to be a reasonable name for the overall general topic the article is trying to address, but if you can suggest a better query then please do so (or please improve the article using what you find). My comment about notability remains unchanged, as well as the other issues in the article. 7 talk | Δ | 06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and that query is so restrictive that it obviously turns up nearly nothing about this topic. I'm not sure what a better "generic name" for this should be but the current article name/title does avoid brand specific names/terms, so it works for now. Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I provided my exact search query. You suggested I pick a different one saying it was likely not to get too many hits, which doesn't help me much considering I already described how few hits it got. The query I used seems to be a reasonable name for the overall general topic the article is trying to address, but if you can suggest a better query then please do so (or please improve the article using what you find). My comment about notability remains unchanged, as well as the other issues in the article. 7 talk | Δ | 06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point, and hope you'll understand mine when I keep my comment at Delete. 7 talk | Δ | 14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Keep, improve, merge, fix up. Per Colonel Warden Chzz ► 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Karowich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article claims some notability, but I'm not sure this passes the bar. Passportguy (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Various searches show someone known somewhat by other Canadian architects, but no indication of notability outside of that group. Two things in the article also hint at a lack of notability: his current job (works for the city of Mississauga, a Toronto suburb), and his book is published by a vanity publisher: [7] Hairhorn (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It really falls on the last step. Highest Heights (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suai Kee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
With the release of one single that received only regional attention plus another available only on iTunes, subject fails to meet the criteria for notability set forth at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Subject thus far has achieved regional, not national, recognition. Inclusion on the Obama compilation fundraising CD is a plus, but is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. As the article edit history shows, a Motown CD album has been forthcoming "soon" for several years; if and when it is released then an article might be appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An editor with an apparent interest in Keeping the article has been adding keep-type facts and arguments to the article's talk page here. S/he hasn't responded to a couple of suggestions to repost the material here and I feel a bit skittish (probably foolishly) in doing it myself without permission. Hence the link, to be sure that the issues get a proper airing. (For what it is worth I don't think any of the additional facts matter.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)(Editor found the right place.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as admittedly having released not one album on a major label. If there's specific RS coverage or charting for her one single, I'll reconsider. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Kiwikibble (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the subject has achieved fair amount of national recognition having done several tours including a recent national tour with Solange and Estelle. She has also done several co-productions with Akon. AmLucki (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The Allmusic database lists her Come Out Come Out Single/EP released in 2008 under the Universal label. She is the singer as well as the composer of the song. The database also lists Am I All Alone sung by her for the Obama CD. I believe she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. AmLucki (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmLucki (talk • contribs)
- My apologies for having added my comments in the wrong place - a newbie's privilige :) I hope I am doing the right thing now by putting the comments here
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the foregoing rationale for "Keep": I doubt that inclusion in the essentially static Allmusic.com database would qualify as "coverage" in a reliable source of a national tour, but even if it did, the actual entry is about as sketchy an entry as possible. The "overview", here, is blank but for her name and the genre "R&B", and the tab labelled "Biography" is grayed out, indicating that none exists. In short, the only information entered on this artist consists of her name, her genre, and the name of two songs she has recorded. If this is coverage, it is trivial, and does not establish notability. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the relisting: are we going by the stated rules or is it something personal? Please read my comments carefully and do not confuse facts. My mention of the national tour had no link with the AllMusic database. Those are two independent notings. To restate my arugument in favour of the artist : she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". The national tour which I mentioned has been widely covered by various magazines, radio stations, online music sites, etc. AmLucki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. When you said she qualified on the basis of #4 (non-trivial coverage of her tour) while citing only to Allmusic.com, I assumed that that was the coverage you meant. If there was significant coverage of Suai on this tour (not just "the" tour) - interviews of her, human interest articles about her growing up & discovering music, that kind of thing - then by all means, link to it. Indeed you *need* to link to it. (I briefly searched for articles about that tour and found mostly local newspaper and periodical blurbs announcing or briefly describing it (i.e. "trivial" coverage); and those that said anything further focused on Suai's touring partners rather than on her.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. لennavecia 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- International Order of Gnostic Templars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominator's rational: Does not pass WP:ORG No indication that this organization is notable. No reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject. A google search on the name gives only 10 hits - seven to various self-published websites owned by the org or its founders, one to the Wikipeida article under discussion, and two promoting a self-published book written by one of the orgs founder. Google books only lists that self-published book. The article does contain a list of general references, but these are either self-published by people involved in the org, or relate to the historical Knights Templars and do not mention the IGOT at all. NOTE: While there are WP:FRINGE issues that could be argued, I do make them a part of this AfD nomination. I think the idea that the historical Templars might have had Gnostic knowledge is a notable enough concept to be discussed on wikipedia. This nomination does not focus on that. I focus purely on the argument that this particular organization is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Something is seriously wrong here. The article is currently full of derision, I get 11 Google News results and way more regular Google hits. Anybody passing by here should read the article. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per the above, I've stubbified the article, the links provided had no relation or did not exist, and most, as you say, (more politely than me) was utter junk.--Alf melmac 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator: Hmmm... Joey is correct, there are more hits on Google (I have no idea what why my initial search ended after the first page).. so I will retract that comment. However, I am not sure if having all these additional hits is much of an improvement. Most of the hits are to websites that do nothing more than mention the name of the org in passing and are really promoting the founder's book. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have restored verifiable external references inadvertently deleted when this was reduced to a stub, but reading all the comments this seems to be a thinly disguised advert for "Da Vinci Code" tourism and should be deleted unless anyone has a good argument for retaining it.--Simsek (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only external source which I can see from the google hits which even remotely qualifies as reliable or independent is Coast to Coast AM. I don't think that's sufficient for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Furthermore, if you actually look at the Coast to Coast AM page in question, it does not discuss the organization at all. It mearly mentions it in passing as means of identification for an image of the group's founder (as in "... In the ceremony pictured left (click for larger) is Mark Amaru Pinkham, the Worthy Fisher King, The International Order of Gnostic Templars.") This is the case with almost all of the Google hits... the IOGT is only mentioned in relation to identifying who Mark Pinkham is. There is nothing on the group itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. A Google News search only finds passing mentions of the trips organised by this "order" and the only mentione found by Google Books is from a publisher that says its books are grouped into the categories: "Atlantic Studies, Alternative Health, Alternative Science, Ancient Science, Anti-Gravity, Conspiracy & History, Cryptozoology, Egypt & the Pyramids, Free Engery Systems, Geometry & Math, Holy Grail & Templar Studies, Lost Cities Series, Mysterious Phenomena, Mystic Travelers Series, Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religion, Strange Science, Tesla Technology, UFO's & Extraterrestrial and more.".[8] That certainly doesn't look like a reliable source to me, per WP:FRINGE. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per both ORG and NFT - The depth of coverage is not substantial and those independent sources seen to be reliable give trivial or incidental coverage. The original contributor may have no connection with the group, but that they are a "made up" organization and have not yet become well known to the rest of the world seems to be the case. Until enough third party sources exist to create at least a balanced stub, the topic should not be covered - I fully expect, if the group continues to exist, that we will hear more of the group in reliable sources, and who knows, maybe not just on the negative side either, at that point we can create a sounder footing for the topic.--Alf melmac 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Completely unremarkable event. Every year, England (and I use the term advisedly) has a couple of inches of snow, the entire transport system grinds to a halt, and many people take the opportunity to have a day off work. This year wasn't significantly different from any other. The Winter of 1963 it was not. The Great Storm of 1987 it was not. We should not, IMO, have an article on it. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This isn't your average inch or two of snowfall; this was the most significant storm in nearly two decades. The storm was among the top news even in the U.S. Easily passes WP:N. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would (obviously) disagree with that. Should we have an article on last weekend, as The nice warm and sunny Late Spring Bank Holiday of 2009? The UK's climate is notoriously variable within reasonable limits - this February did not significantly breach those limits. How our transport infrastructure deals with it is another matter - but we already have The wrong kind of snow, which _is_ a reasonable subject for an article. Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We would not have an article on the recent glorious May bank holiday weekend as it did not break anyrecords or have any proper impact on the UK where as this did Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would (obviously) disagree with that. Should we have an article on last weekend, as The nice warm and sunny Late Spring Bank Holiday of 2009? The UK's climate is notoriously variable within reasonable limits - this February did not significantly breach those limits. How our transport infrastructure deals with it is another matter - but we already have The wrong kind of snow, which _is_ a reasonable subject for an article. Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily notable as it was the highest snowfall levels in twenty years and that February (admittedly more in places like Kent, and not up here in sunny Aberdeen) was an unprecedented level of snow. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the fact that they had to shut down London for the first time in four years (since 7/7) makes this notable. And not to invoke WP:WAX, but this was actually an extreme weather storm for the UK, unlike the dozens of weather events in the US which have articles, despite the levels of snow being comparable (and the US, as a rule, gets more snow than the UK, thank you Gulf Steam) Sceptre (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Re-name - This was a notable event, as confirmed by the amount of press coverage from reliable sources in the refs section. Also, as noted above, it was the ending of an eighteen year run of warmer winters. It may be a little long-winded and could be re-named Winter of 2008-2009. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - It's hard to compare recent events to events more than 50 years ago. This is because knowledge of weather and the quality of homes (to protect people) is much improved. The fact that this storm shut down entire public transit systems is fairly significant IMO. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's beyond just news as there was a documentary about the event. Such widespread snow is rare across the British Isles. Jolly Ω Janner 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This was the worst snowfall in 18 odd years and thus it is worthy of an article. Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nominator makes a good point with NOTNEWS, but this was one h*** of a snowstorm for the Brits; I think it deserves an article. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It was the thing on the news, and had a huge amount of press coverage. It was one of the worst snowstorms for years in the UK, as well. The long list of references alone shows that it deserves an article. Also, if you delete this, don't you think that such articles as January 2009 Central Plains and Midwest ice storm could also go? Darth Newdar (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep... Hehe, I'm here all day. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry to spoil the party, even though when I go against the herd it's usually to defend articles against pile-on deletion !votes. I must say that I'm rather bemused by this article, and by the fact that so many people are defending it. I lived through this, and yes, it was a minor inconvenience, but should it really be considered to be an encyclopedic event going beyond WP:NOT#NEWS? All of the references are to news articles dated from when this was happening, rather than any sources discussing it as a historic event. If equivalent events in the United States have articles then I would question those as well. Many more severe weather events happen outside the Western Anglophone world that nobody would dream of creating an English Wikipedia article about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This weather event went far beyond routine news coverage. It is rather pointless debating whether this will become a noted historical bad weather yardstick in the future to fully overcome the spirit of NOT#NEWS (which is so often ignored at Afd for absolute rubbish like Muslim Massacre), seeing as it is only a few months since it happened, let alone years. MickMacNee (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Will it get confusing if we invoke the snowball clause on an article about snow? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We've had it happen before: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The wrong kind of snow. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Whilst I agree with the nom, this caused a hell of a lot of disruption in the United Kingdom (at one stage, only two of the seven people that I work with managed to make it in - and I work in Preston), had a documentary made about it, caused London to shut down for the first time since the July 7 attacks (I refuse to call it "7/7") and was even on the front page of WP in the "In The News" section. Surely all that stuff makes it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - I left a bit out: the opening should have read "Whilst I would agree with the nom if it was a usual occurance in Britain". (Also, to the person who alluded to the storm of 1987 - that only affected part of the country: this snow affected most - if not all - of it.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We don't get weather like this very often nowadays in the United Kingdom (especially the Southern part) so it might not seem like a lot to other people/countries used to heavy snowfall. But it was a lot to us as we are not used to such heavy widespread snowfall. It'll be a shame if this does get deleted. Pebbles1979 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Per most of the comments above and because the fall out from this is continuing now with criticism of how the authorities handled it - see this BBC article for instance from the last few days. While the roads needed salting then, don't delete and salt this article. (sorry could not resist that last sentence!) Davewild (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's the first proper argument I've seen for keeping this - some coverage from later than the immediate aftermath of these events. I'm still not totally convinced about the long-term significance of this, so I won't strike my delete opinion, and anyway, it wouldn't make any difference to the imminent snow. The thing that really worries me is that my reading of that BBC article makes it twice in as many days that I have agreed with Boris Johnson. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep (!), per just about everyone else - this is astonishing! It was deemed suitable for the Main Page and survived for days in a section which is now becoming notorious for the number of removed posts. This type of argument would see just about any article deleted a few months later! What I mean by that would be (current example) Air France Flight 447 is only one plane and planes crash all the time and it wasn't a record-breaking incident (which this spell of bad weather was) and more than 228 people die in the world every day anyway (if you want to be extreme). I or anyone could opt for delete in just about any news event if that were the case. --candle•wicke 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I note Quiddity's comment to add in List of G rated films, but as that article was not tagged for deletion, I am not interpreting it as an attempt to make this a discussion of that article as well and have nominated it separately. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of PG rated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unmaintainable list RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Add in List of G rated films too. Delete both as unmaintainable, and/or better suited for a category. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pointless and insane. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lack of references doesn't help, either. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails list guidelines, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and too American-centric. Could have sworn this one was deleted before, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R rated movies, but can't find one under a similar name so not speediable right now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a bad idea-- there are hundreds of films released every year-- 610 in the U.S. in 2008, according to mpaa.org; of those, G rated films are about 4 percent of that number, PG is 16%, PG-13 is 28% and R is 51%. I'd agree that this would be better served by a category, but the category system fails on this one. Strangely enough, there is no category for a film rating, although the category freaks make a tag for everything else. Go figure. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A sufficient answer to the above argument is NOT PAPER, and a reminder that we have ways of dividing up even the largest lists. There should of course be a category as well. DGG (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categorizing films by every rating they received in every country is not a good idea, particularly given the length of the category name that would be necessary to disambiguate the classification (e.g., Category:Films rated PG by the Motion Picture Association of America). Lists for each of these systems can coexist, but categories would compete for each other for space by cluttering individual film articles. Postdlf (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'd hope that all the various ratings information becomes part of our meta-data somehow/sometime, whether through the infoboxes or elsewhere. But a hand-maintained list of films by rating seems unmaintainably large, and very US-centric, and doesn't add the metadata to the articles in question. (See also: many discussions about ratings at Template Talk:Infobox Film point to MOS:FILM#Ratings). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.) I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--16% would be about eight new PG-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with that level of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List of NC-17 rated films will need to be looked at as well, its basically a mirror of the MPAA's film ratings database. That organization is not known for taking copyright very lightly.--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there was some creativity involved in the selection or arrangement of that list, the list isn't copyrightable—it's just an unoriginal list of facts. Postdlf (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment List of NC-17 rated films will need to be looked at as well, its basically a mirror of the MPAA's film ratings database. That organization is not known for taking copyright very lightly.--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inane, pointless, not maintainable. Bulldog123 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes. How many films would this be? Isn't it like tens of thousands? I would support a tighter list of notable films that meet one of several criteria which are clearly spelled out and maintained like (i) won major awards, within reason as sometime several actors win but the film doesn't etc; (ii) notable for highest grossing in sales (iii) notable for highest attendance, which can be despite low sales figures and (iv) notable for soem other profound reasoning as demonstrated in reliable sources. If the list is cleaned up and refocussed so it's more discriminating I will support it it remaining. All the rest should be categorized, and good luck with all that. -- Banjeboi 21:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Noobish Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article violates WP:ORG with no clear evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. Also appears to be significantly promotional in nature. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Non-notable company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Self-promotion of a non-notable label. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and WP:ORG. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Since the notability is clear, deletion is not an issue here. However, the article needs expansion. Tone 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacqueline Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Highest Heights (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - She played for England at an International level, passes WP:CRIN. --Triwbe (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Johnlp (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable per WP:ATHLETE. JH (talk page) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if expanded, desperately needs sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. International test cricketer. Clearly notable. Nancy talk 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sergei Isupov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Inpossible to read, maybe also non-notable. Highest Heights (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article was only "impossible to read" if nobody tried to give the creator any help with formatting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ginormous résumé that they didn't even TRY to make into a true article. Seems they've mistaken this for Résumépedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did you even TRY to help the editor who was unfamilar with Wikipedia formatting? If you're here to help build the encyclopedia rather than to knock down others efforts to do so then I suggest that you help out the newbies rather than bite them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He does get some hits in Google News, which may or may not add up to notability, but this is not a helpful start to an article. It is such a mess that it would be better to delete and start from scratch. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This has masses of good content that we won't have a hope of recreating if the article is deleted. The only problem is that the creator doesn't know Mediawiki markup - is that a reason to delete an article on such a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Well done for parsing any sense out of it. I have struck out my delete vote as the current content is effectively a rewrite. It wasn't simply a formatting issue. When a biography or resume is so obviously pasted in from another source it is quite likely to be a copyvio but I am happy that the extent of the rewriting has neutralised any such concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please be civil, assume good faith and refrain from making unsourced negative remarks about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see what's uncivil about my observation that this is a resume. If you think you can improve this article and make it objective, fine, but don't go around throwing WP word salads at people because you disagree with their observations. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you had made the observation that this is a resume then it would have been fine, but accusing the article subject of vanity is not civil. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were accusing anyone of anything, I'd direct my comments to the article creator. As stated, it is merely a witty catchphrase standing in for "Subject is not notable given what the article demonstrates and further research obtains nothing. Most likely a vanity page." I don't see vanity as a negative buzzword, but I guess some people do, so I'll discontinue my catchphrase. Too bad, it was witty enough to get quoted in an anti-Wikipedia article once. Wait, I guess I see your point now... x_x JuJube (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per [9][10][11][12][13] and many more. The article creator is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting, so shouldn't the reaction be to help rather than pile on to demand deletion of an article about a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe if someone re-wrote it with sources, I'd consider changing my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Maybe you could have looked beyond the article creator's technical inability to format the article correctly and seen that that the article already had loads of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On formatting this to make it look half-way presentable I've found that right from the beginning it contained many sources, including quite a few magazine articles with Isupov as the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added another 29 reliable sources on top of the ones the were there to start with, and made a start on formatting/wikifying. I've spent a good few hours doing that, and it's now bed-time in my time zone, so maybe one of the editors above that complained about this being badly written would like to make some further improvements? I think I've used up just about everything that can be viewed via Google News[14], but I haven't even looked at the Google web search results[15] yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Multiple works in major museums is notability for an artist. We accept there standards of what is notable in the field. Or are we a better judge than the curators of the MFA Boston, and LA? and of about a dozen others in a number of countries? DGG (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep after Phil Bridger's clean-up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn (WP:HEY; NAC) Ipatrol (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newbridge on Wye railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Minor train station with no sources existent or to be found. Nothing to merge either. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Ipatrol (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Highest Heights (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, decision to go for AfD is a non-sense. Article complies with WP:V and WP:N.Pyrotec (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is WP:verifiable, which unsupprisingly is a requirement of WP:V.Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources to show verifiability and notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unless my memory is defective, I thought it had already been decided that all railway stations are notable. So the only requirement is to verify its existence (which Pyrotec has now done, and much more). --Dr Greg (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, much improved (well done Pyrotec). BencherliteTalk 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - but still expandable! axpdeHello! 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Even before the sources were added, how did this "fail" WP:V? A topic doesn't "fail" WP:V if it is currently unverified, but if it's completely unverifiable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep, shouln't have been nominated in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note For everyone criticizing the nomination, here's a difflink on how I found it. I am currently considering closing the nomination par WP:HEY, but I have not make a decision yet so as of now I am still pushing for deletion.
- Keep It existed, so it should stay. [[16]] Alexs (talk) 09:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. BJTalk 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oksana Grigorieva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This originally had a prod tag placed on it, but it was removed by an IP, who said "I found the article useful. Ms. Grigorieva is noted for > 1 thing." However, she really isn't notable for more than one thing, which happens to be that she had a baby with Timothy Dalton and is now pregnant by Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson's soon to be ex-wife doesn't meet notability beyond that relationship, although she is involved in various charities. The article only hints at brushes with celebrities, consists of mostly gossip and fluff. She simply does not meet notability.
More importantly, I didn't discover that this was an article that had been recreated following a deletion discussion until I'd nominated it.
Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Article is a recreation of previously deleted article. No indication the subject is more notable than before - having sex with notable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Florida Whig Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article was deleted two years ago as a non-notable minor party. It has long been traditional on Wikipedia that state parties get redirected to the page of the national party, but my repeated attempts to do so in this case have repeatedly been reverted. There is nothing unique about this state party that is not covered in the national party page. One user has already been blocked temporarily for ownership issues, including ordering people who dare to edit the page to contact a spokesman for the party first. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge Speedy Keep: I opposed the redirect on grounds that I felt this matter should be decided by consensus. I have expressed concerns on the article's talk page, the general scope of which being that while there are multiple, independant, non-trivial mentions in a number of internet publications, I am not satisfied with the sourcing as it currently exists, despite my own efforts to the contrary, and thus cannot wholeheartedly support keeping the article. My concern is primarily with the fact that many of the sources are of questionable reliability, although another editor has helped to temper my concerns by describing the publications in more detail. However, there have also been conflict of interest issues that are deeply concerning, and need to be considered when deciding, although they are certainly not dispositive. While I hope the organization has realized the conflict of interest and will refrain from ownership-type activities in the future, there is certainly an argument for deleting the article on those grounds alone. I would support a merge with Modern Whig Party if that is the consensus, but I can see some good arguments for keeping the article, so I would also weakly support keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinion Change: Nom has withdrawn, sourcing is adaquate if slightly unreliable, and most if not all of the COI influence is no longer part of the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have mentioned a number of reasons on the talk page. There is merit for the COI issues, but the article has been completely redone from its original format so that issue is moot. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compels me to recommend keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources. I will add that while I may not be the most experienced editor on here, the circumstances surrounding this article have completely been unnecessary negative in tone, something that seems to have rubbed off onto the judgment. This article has demonstrated notability, and should be improved and not deleted or merged.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Aardvark brings up an important note... The organization may now be part of the Modern Whig Party, but according to what I've read on the subject, it actually joined the Modern Whig Party AFTER being officially recognized in Flordia. That may by itself offer a reason why a merge could be precluded. I don't think it necessarily precludes a merge, but it is something that should be considered. I also don't think that the mere fact that this is a state party should automatically preclude inclusion if the sources are there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was listed as being a state party on the national party's article until I removed it and redirected all of the state party pages to the main page. It uses the same logo as the national party. That makes this a state organization which, as I said in the nomination, says nothing unique about the state party which makes it unique from the national party. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if it was listed on the national party's article as a state party then that was inaccurate. For example, Ballot Access News (a print publication as well as online) does not even mention the Modern Whig Party when covering the issues surrounding the Florida Whig Party. Another source states that the "Modern Whig Party and the Florida Whig Party jointly announce..." While there is an obvious affiliation, the Florida Whig Party in its state registration and in various sources holds itself out as a separate entity. But as was mentioned above, the fact that the Florida Whig Party was registered before the Modern Whig Party lends credence to the fact that this situation and state party is unique. Also, it's not the "Florida Modern Whig Party" as was the incorrect case on the national party site, but Florida Whig Party. Regardless, the Florida Whig Party is notable via multiple sources as a registered state party with ballot access, a candidate and some distinct notability for being a unique party on various levels.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was listed as being a state party on the national party's article until I removed it and redirected all of the state party pages to the main page. It uses the same logo as the national party. That makes this a state organization which, as I said in the nomination, says nothing unique about the state party which makes it unique from the national party. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Aardvark brings up an important note... The organization may now be part of the Modern Whig Party, but according to what I've read on the subject, it actually joined the Modern Whig Party AFTER being officially recognized in Flordia. That may by itself offer a reason why a merge could be precluded. I don't think it necessarily precludes a merge, but it is something that should be considered. I also don't think that the mere fact that this is a state party should automatically preclude inclusion if the sources are there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query:Who then was a gentleman?, can you provide some AfD/merger/redirect examples for the assertion that state parties are traditionally redirected? I've looked, and we have articles for pretty much (if not all) 50 states for the Republican and Democrat parties. I'm not arguing that is a reason we should keep the article (I'd have to smack myself if I was), I just think it would be helpful to this AfD to have examples. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Er. I'm going to have to look. That really surprises me, as it hasn't been my experience in the past. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I'm looking too, so far I haven't found any, but there are quite a few to check through to see if they went up for AfD or were ever redirected...Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look as well to give this a fair shake, although I think the fact that there are some notable elements to what appears to be an independently registered, albeit affiliated, political party makes this a bit moot in light of the sourcing.Aardvark31 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't found anything to suggest that there is such a tradition, despite picking through the histories of various state party articles for the GOP and DNC, as well as numerous third parties. I may have missed something, but so far I just don't see it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also picked through the discussions at WP:ORG regarding political parties, and I can find no suggestion of such a tradition there, either, although many redirects wouldn't make it to AfD, and probably then wouldn't become at issue on WP:ORG's discussion page. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look as well to give this a fair shake, although I think the fact that there are some notable elements to what appears to be an independently registered, albeit affiliated, political party makes this a bit moot in light of the sourcing.Aardvark31 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I'm looking too, so far I haven't found any, but there are quite a few to check through to see if they went up for AfD or were ever redirected...Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has references and sources that make it independently notable. Article is stripped of any fluff and sticks with the sourcing. Enough said... It's notable so recommend keep.Danprice19 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.
-- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The issues with this article had to do with ownership and conflict of interest, not notability. Such issues are not valid deletion arguments. The party was on the ballot. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Other than my concerns about the reliability of the sources provided, I would tend to agree that there is no longer a sourcing issue. Also, my understanding was that the party *will* be on the ballot in 2010, but has not previously been on the ballot. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination. I know that I have seen many past AfDs were state parties were redirected to national parties, but I cannot find them now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Holiday Bowl. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holiday Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A user created this article as a sub of Holiday Bowl. I merged them together leaving a message at his talk page and Talk:Holiday Bowl, and he undid without any explanation. Since the main article is only 19kb long and this stub list is only 3kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92Talk 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The user once again, never split the article. The user simply started another article. Please go back and look at the history once again!--Levineps (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; maybe not on this article, but for some of the others you did, and that's beside the point that you're undoing me without reason. I WP:MERGED the two together because there is no reason for them to be separate. You simply undid me without any explanation. It's also slightly deceiving and confusing to be speaking in third person there. It was Levineps who made the article. And you have yet to tell me why the two pages must be separate. Reywas92Talk 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The user once again, never split the article. The user simply started another article. Please go back and look at the history once again!--Levineps (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if deemed necessary. This list is not notable in its own right. Quantpole (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an excellent experiment as a chart, it isn't an article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by that? We know it's a table/list, not an article, but it can and should be easily merged into the related main article. It does not have notability on its own. Reywas92Talk 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge to Holiday Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sebastian Winnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article was (improperly) PRODded with the reason "Subject is not noteworthy, page has been created as a joke as "Winnet" is a slang term for faecal adhesion." The person does appear to exist through a Google search, though. My reason for deletion is that I don't think this person is notable per the Wikipedia guideline of notability. Tinlinkin (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources don't show notability. Being exhibited on its own doesn't show notability. Searching only gives blogs and the like. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but don't salt - this is a real 22-year-old artist, but who is just not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Might be notable one day, but not today. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even the "home" web site is a set of free pages via his ISP, and in the name of Tom Winnett not Sebastian Winnett. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Gator Bowl. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gator Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A user split this list from Gator Bowl a while back without reason. I merged them together, and he undid without any explanation. After leaving messages on his talk page and Talk:Gator Bowl, he undos again. Since the main article is 35kb long and this stub list is only 3kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92Talk 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy merge Doesn't need a delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge - But Afd is not the appropriate place for a merge discussion. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rey always likes to put the delete option up for articles that this person does not like (as opposed to the merged purposal). Look at this person's history, it's a repeated pattern--Levineps (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read my reasoning, I do NOT support deletion. I HAVE proposed merge, but you are the unreasonable one who seems to refuse to have ANY discussion about these! There is absoluely no reason why these articles must be separate. When YOU will not respond to my posts but instead just UNDO, then my other option is AFD! Reywas92Talk 18:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rey always likes to put the delete option up for articles that this person does not like (as opposed to the merged purposal). Look at this person's history, it's a repeated pattern--Levineps (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge to Gator Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corpus Christi (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doesn't assert notability beyond being on a (supposedly) notable label. Absolutely no non-trivial coverage found. {{Db-band}} declined because a previous one had already been removed by an admin (which I find to be process for process' sake). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was me who declined the speedy (the second time). I did a quick search and discovered that AbsolutePunk.net had reviewed the band's album. That's not enough for the general notability guideline but it was in my view enough to think it shouldn't be speedied; time can be taken to see if other sources can be found. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Coverage of the band found in this review from Thrash Magazine, and a couple of other reviews found. There's also this from Cross Rhythms, and this and this from blabbermouth.net. There's als an interview here. I see no reason to doubt the notability of Victory Records, the label that released the band's debut album. And if a speedy is declined, that makes it a controversial deletion so adding another speedy tag is really not on.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that it had already been tagged when I tagged it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passed WP:MUSIC#C1 for the sources that Michig found and this, and this as well. And one from Italy too. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 10:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient number of reliable sources have been found. Royalbroil 03:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doctor Who 2009 (fan series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - Unreleased fan series of questionable notability. No reliable sources - only blogs, forum posts, and YouTube links. Google search turns up no major reliable third-party coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much as I am inclined to give Doctor Who related material the benefit of the doubt, there is nothing here to indicate notability yet. If they do ever complete a whole episode (never mind a series) then I can see it standing a chance of becoming notable but it certainly should be deleted for the time being. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only remarkable thing so far is that the BBC hasn't shut it down - presumably because it's raising money for charity. No idea whether it's ever going to appear though - one of the blog sources says that ep 1 was pulled because the FX were still in post-production, which doesn't bode too well. Delete, and recreate a much better article with proper sources if this proves to be a successful enterprise.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Bad sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Certainly get rid of it here on the basis of no legitimate sources to establish notability; no coverage whatsoever making this anything better than crystal-balling. Ironically, its very presence on Wikipedia may bring it to the attention of the BBC, who will in all likelihood crush it anyway as a breach of copyright. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Outpost Gallifrey haven't picked up on it; no reason for us to either Sceptre (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I started this page because this project is gaining a lot of attention in the Doctor Who fan community. The BBC copyright stuff seems irrelevant, as the BBC has a track record of allowing and even supporting Doctor Who fan projects. I understand the issue that it has yet to be released and has no definite release date yet, but the creators say the release date will be announced very soon. I totally understand if this gets deleted, but I honestly believe this has the potential to be nearly as big as Star Trek: Phase II, which has an article here. That article has slightly better references, but not by much. The fact is, the Doctor Who fan film community is a growing one. It doesn't necessarily have major coverage yet, but I still think this project is worthy of an article. Ronson87 (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non=notable fan future maybe film series? Like a vio of SPAM, BLOG, NOT, CRYSTAL... sheesh. del and burn. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some reliable source reporting on it can be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reasons: 1. (Good sources) The Doctor Who 2009 fan series has been covered twice by Fan Cinema Today, a reputable site which is ran by the author of the internationally released book "Homemade Hollywood", and the entry references the site 2. (Good Sources) This article cites more sources than the article for the "Star Trek: Phase II" fan series and many other fan series articles. 3. (Good Sources) Google search turns up numerous articles and info on the project for me. 4. (Not crystal-balling) The article only reports in a non-bias manner on events or coverage that has already occurred and references materials that have already been released. 5. I found out that members of the Outpost Gallifrey Staff work on the project, and this may be a reason it has not been covered by them (i.e., so as not to appear to be bias), Doctor Who Online (which is as notable as Outpost Gallifrey) asked the producers through The Doctor Who Forum to contact them about promoting the series. 6 (Notability) The project's facebook page has nearly 700 fans, the video of the first trailer received over 25,000 hits, and the series YouTube Channel became #14 Most Subscribed of the week the very day it went up. This is all evidence that it is a popular fan series that has general awareness. 7. The series website links to third party articles written about them. These articles range for short snippets to full on interviews with cast and crew, many of which have not even been referenced here yet. 8. The producers of the series have stated in several places that the first episode is finished and awaiting release on the new date they have voted on. They have just not pubically announced the date because of their marketing plan.MegabyteModem (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)— MegabyteModem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Much of what is written above is covered by WP:AADD. The Phase II argument is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Facebook/Youtube argument is a classic example of WP:BIG. The entire article is based on WP:CRYSTAL as the film/potential film has yet to be released and covered in any reliable sources; note that none quoted above classify as reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seeing how the trailer and other publicity materials exist for the production it is not WP:CRYSTAL because the article reports on those. Fan Cinema Today falls with the description of WP:RS (In fact all the references outside of their own website fall within the description that's given with in the rules IMO).MegabyteModem (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is utter nonsense. Not all websites outside of the one in question fall within WP:RS; in fact, the vast majority do not. This is why commercially-published print sources are what you should be looking for for preference, as absolutely anybody can set up a website and decalre themselves an authority. I see no evidence that Fan Cinema Today falls within WP:RS; has its content been published ina third-party source for instance? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentYes, SciFiCannel Magazine among a dozen others. Clive Young and Fan Cinema Today are an athourity on Fan Films.MegabyteModem (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is utter nonsense. Not all websites outside of the one in question fall within WP:RS; in fact, the vast majority do not. This is why commercially-published print sources are what you should be looking for for preference, as absolutely anybody can set up a website and decalre themselves an authority. I see no evidence that Fan Cinema Today falls within WP:RS; has its content been published ina third-party source for instance? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BIG says nothing about citing an item's popularity at other sources, it only says that an item's popularity on Wikipedia is not relevant. So the YouTube/Facebook argument is not covered there. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem relevant either, because this project is not merely speculative, it is in production, and nothing mentioned in the article is based on speculation. If I had written, "The first episode is going to come out soon and is going to be hugely popular," then yeah, that's crystalballing. But writing that a project is in the works and scheduled to be released this summer is not crystalballing, especially when this information references major sources for the medium. Fan Cinema Today is definitely a reliable source according to WP:RS, where it says referenced authors must be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Ronson87 (talk) 2:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You appear to have totally failed to read WP:BIG. WP:CRYSTAL does apply, as the notability of this fan film is yet to be determined as it hasn't even been released yet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right, I was accidentally reading WP:POPULARPAGE when I posted that response. Sorry about that! As for WP:CRYSTAL, according to your logic, every page for a movie/album/TV show that has yet to premiere should be deleted. Doctor Who 2009 has already gained notability due to the trailers and the hype surrounding the project. Regarding WP:RS, if Clive Young of Fan Cinema Today is not a notable source for a fan film, then a notable source does not exist. This guy literally wrote the book on fan films. Ronson87 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You keep saying that the series is notable, yet aside from one source of questionable relevance, you have yet to show this. Where are the multiple sources? If this thing is as notable as you say, it should be getting coverage all over the place from multiple reliable sources, like, for say, The Hunt for Gollum - I'm not seeing that... MikeWazowski (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right, I was accidentally reading WP:POPULARPAGE when I posted that response. Sorry about that! As for WP:CRYSTAL, according to your logic, every page for a movie/album/TV show that has yet to premiere should be deleted. Doctor Who 2009 has already gained notability due to the trailers and the hype surrounding the project. Regarding WP:RS, if Clive Young of Fan Cinema Today is not a notable source for a fan film, then a notable source does not exist. This guy literally wrote the book on fan films. Ronson87 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You appear to have totally failed to read WP:BIG. WP:CRYSTAL does apply, as the notability of this fan film is yet to be determined as it hasn't even been released yet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. Angmering (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability established. Appears to be chiefly speculation about things that have yet to happen, and may not ever, all cited from either primary source or a few forums, not reliable sources. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushir Redjeb Pasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested speedy. Yes, this is a hoax. The interwiki links are fake, and no actual citations are provided. Moreover, we're supposed to believe this man was born in Prussia, served Turkey in the First Barbary War (which ended when he was 6) and the Second Barbary War (which happened when he was 16) as well as in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War (when he was almost 80), that he was a leader of the Young Turks at age 108, and finally that he was serving as a government minister at age 109 when he was assassinated. Sorry, I'm not buying this. Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing on google web books or scholar for this subject.--Dmol (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete And don't forget to warn the creator and delete the corresponding image from commons. Dahn (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no mention anywhere that i can find and a probable hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Warriors of the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable, unpublished book, written by pseudonym, with the major cooperation of another pseudonym Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why both prod and afd? Highest Heights (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because 2 different editors both thought it was deletable, and had 2 different opinions as to how this should be accomplished. The ProD and the AfD were both posted within the same minute, and neither I nor the other editor had any idea the other was proposing deletion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An unpublished book would have to be pretty significant to get a page. Also, why invoke "privacy"? Little of this article makes sense. Could probably be speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Under what criterion is this speedyable? —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me, I didn't realize A7 did not apply to books; only thing left is G11, which is iffy in this case. Hairhorn (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Please recreate if and when book is published and mention in a reliable source. --Mblumber (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the editor who prod'd the article. In any case, the reasons listed here for why the article should be deleted are pretty much what led me to prod it in the first place--as such, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. In addition to the notability/verifiability issues, based on the username of the article creator, this is likely also original research. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. With no names for the authors, no publisher, and no sources, this book is indistinguishable from any other randomly chosen piece of fan fiction. Bluntly put, I couldn't tell it apart from a hole in the ground. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was both speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Anthony.bradbury - non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigfried Vollmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Either a hoax article or competely unverifiable.
This was tricky for me, I'm not that familiar with heraldry. Subject is supposed to be "current head of the cadet House of Hohenzollern-Hechingen, the former ruling house of the Hechingen and the Kingdom of Prussia." These regions no longer exist, although families of course can live on. In this case, though, I have found several sources, including wikipedia, that say that the Hohenzollern-Hechingen line died off in 1869. Several of the relevant wikipedia pages have since been edited by the article author to mention Sigfried Vollmer and the House magically starting up again, with no explantion of the missing century. See Constantine, Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen for an as yet unaltered page that explains the end of the House of Hohenzollern-Hechingen (the region was absorbed into the Kingdom of Prussia, and the heirs died out). Another unchanged page is Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, which says clearly that the line died out in 1869.
A Google search for "Sigfried Vollmer" brings up only the new wiki pages, a wiki mirror, and one person not claiming to be a prince. Google suggests looking for "Siegfried Vollmer", which brings more hits, but nothing relevant to this case. Similarly for Google Books and Scholar: no relevant hits. So I have to conclude that this is a hoax. Even if it's not a hoax, it's a completely unverifiable fringe theory, which would also merit deletion.
I left a note on the author's talk page, hoping for clarification, but got no response.
Also nominating a page by the same author for Sigfried Vollmer's alleged son:
- Kessler Vollmer, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hairhorn (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete likely hoax. The 1910 Brittanica says the line became extinct in 1869 as does this book and, less reliably, Appleton's. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete both WP:CSD#G7 - at 07:29 this morning the author blanked both these pages. They were restored by another editor, quite properly because the AfD template instructs that the page "must not be blanked"; but I think, as detected hoaxes, blanking by their author can be taken, per G7, as a request to delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete, CSD A7. (non-admin closure) Redfarmer (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Some kind of advertising for a non-notable skateboarder. Wikipedia isn't a webhotel. Highest Heights (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellatron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable piece of software for the iphone. Article was created by user:Omenie - the company that produce this product. Speedy requested as spam but declined. There are no google news stories on this product. Smartse (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Highest Heights (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable--Rmzadeh (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if there's a standardized format for this dialog that I'm not using - but again, in Ella's defence, re. 'notable' - one of the world's leading - if not *the* leading rock keyboard player - has picked up this software, unprompted, contacted the company to work on improvements and is going to be using the software on stage for the band's upcoming world tour - does that not itself make the software notable? And where the synthesiser and mobile blogospheres meet - matrixsynth, synthtopia, palmsounds - there is a lot of interest, so they (as long-standing synthesiser people) seem to regard the software as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omenie (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google shows no indications of notability. The author, please take a look at WP:PRODUCT, WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NOTABILITY. — Rankiri (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Reclosing to fix formatting (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mimika Air Flight 514 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable air crash. Highest Heights (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aren't all plane crashes with fatalities notable? More info here Lugnuts (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- nomination withdrawn Perhaps, i don't know. The article however need to wikified and cleaned up. Highest Heights (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Najm rehan (film maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Looks A7 fodder to me, but the possibility of notability has me going AFD route instead. The list of films made is long, but there is no real indication that any of them are notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NOTE. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject fails WP:BIO. The redirect should be deleted as well. Hekerui (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 15:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redaxscript (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No indication of notability is given. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Search results mainly link to trivial download summaries and vulnerability alerts. Not a single result on Google News/Books/Scholar. — Rankiri (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Simply not notable. Highest Heights (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non consumer software, another one of them: content management system for small business and private websites. Written like an ad: It's extremely lightweight, simple and customizable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not indicate any sort of notability and reads like an advertisement. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 14:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Laura White (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability other than her involvement in The X Factor (UK series 5) so WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E apply. All the X Factor finalists have biographies at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5); there is nothing of note which justifies a separate article. I42 (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No need for separate article at the moment. If she is signed and releases an album etc then she will probably be notable. Quantpole (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her BBC coverage is extensive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any reference to this Laura White on the BBC website which is not about the X Factor. [17] I42 (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. BLP1E is not a reason to delete - please read it. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be surprised to note I have read the policy and understood it. There is already a biography at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) which satisfies that policy, so this article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, BLP1E suggests merger in such cases, not deletion. This person is so notable that questions have been asked about her in Parliament and so it is a nonsensical suggestion that we should completely delete this article and doing so would violate our editing policy. In any case, the 1E argument is moot because the article contains sourced coverage of her subsequent career and there is continuing coverage of her in reliable sources within the last month. Your 1E was last year so that argument is a bust. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid you are misusing WP:PRESERVE again - that is about cleaning up poorly written material. I contend that she has done nothing notable apart from X Factor (when that was is irrelevant) so 1E most certainly does apply. I42 (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1E isn't for people who have done something notable, it is for low profile people. The subject is much noticed for her own performances and so passes WP:ENTERTAINER. WP:PRESERVE tells that we don't delete material when we wish to rearrange it - we use ordinary content editing so that the contributions and edit history are respected and improved. Deletion is both disrepectful and unhelpful and not at all appropriate in this case owning to the great notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disrespectful how exactly? Quantpole (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is disrespectful to an aspiring artist to suggest that their notable accomplishments are of no account. It is disrespectful to the numerous good faith editors of this article to suggest that their contributions are utterly worthless and so should be deleted. It is disrespectful to our intelligence to suggest that BLP1E provides a reason to delete in such cases when it so clearly suggests merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confusing wikipedia terminology of notability (for which there are various guidelines) and real world notability which is necessarily subjective. If you're concerned about the history being lost, then I personally have no objection for the article to be redirected to the x-factor page, and the histories merged. Quantpole (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are content with a merger, then please amend your !vote above. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Already at [[18]], per the nomination. This article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be surprised to note I have read the policy and understood it. There is already a biography at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5) which satisfies that policy, so this article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many, many news articles (several are BBC as earlier !vote KEEP pointed out) on her. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all those articles were published within the same two months on the same subject making it a WP:1E. That search also seems to bring up lots of other unrelated Laura White's.--Otterathome (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at the sources which demonstrate the clear notability of the subject, not the irrelevant ones. For example, see Laura White sings to sell out Manchester crowd which demonstrates beyond all question the notability of this artist. It seems absurd to claim that a person who is headlining before sell-out crowds in a major city is a low-profile person of the sort that BLP1E is intended for. WP:POINT seems relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read the article it is actually about the X Factor tour, of which she was part. It's still about X-Factor; it's still 1E. I42 (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but an event doesn't involve multiple performances on different days. An event is a one-time occurence like a meteorite striking the earth. And in this example it becomes plain to see how specious and overzealous legalism in the applicaiton of WP:1E would require wikipedia to AFD Tunguska event. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree entirely. She is merley a player in the notable event which is the X Factor, no matter how long that event extends for. Articles on West End shows, for example, don't have articles on every single performer within it simply because it runs every night (and maybe even tours the provinces) - but it's exactly analagous. Right now she's simply part of the X Factor show. I42 (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, also fails WP:MUSICBIO.--Otterathome (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since she has had multiple performances over the years, she certainly passes WP:1E. Which aspect of WP:MUSICBIO does the !vote claim she fails, specifically? For in my mind she certainly meets: criteria #4
--Firefly322 (talk) 11:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
- I don't see any non-trivial coverage in a reliable source about her being on an international/national concert tour in the article.--Otterathome (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this "X Factor star Laura White set to wow the crowds in Liverpool", she is doing engagements in advance of the X Factor Tour Live 2009. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is about her singing in the Echo Arena, and the x-factor tour is a trivial mention.--Otterathome (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is perhaps the beginnings of independent notability because she seems to have been booked as herself; it's not part of her X Factor appearances. It's a step forward, but it's not a national tour and it's somewhat trivial coverage, so its still not sufficient. I42 (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since she has had multiple performances over the years, she certainly passes WP:1E. Which aspect of WP:MUSICBIO does the !vote claim she fails, specifically? For in my mind she certainly meets: criteria #4
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as hoax Nancy talk 16:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fahad Shiftra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a blatant hoax, completely unsupported by any of the alleged "references" cited. Erik9 (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. 99.168.86.206 (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Speedy delete as hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Republic of Serbian Krajina#Geography. Very little in the main article on the geography of this area, so a merge back into the main article seems thebest solution supported by consensus here Fritzpoll (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant to have this kind of article on a territory that was never internationally recognised. Any relevant info should be covered in Geography of Croatia or Republic of Serbian Krajina. Spellcast (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is there anywhere that this information could better be merged? If so, merge it there and then redirect; if not, delete. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The physical landscape and population stats can easily be mentioned in the respective articles above. Spellcast (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As determined before, it is totally irrelevant if the entity was legal or illegal, recognized or not. Why do you bring that up. Why? You are just nickeling and diming the issue. This whole issue came out from the issue of the list of towns in this entity. This is where the whole controversy is. That list will for sure be expanded. Mark my word. (LAz17 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
- A small list can easily be put in the main article. Spellcast (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is going to be expanded big time. Oh yeah. Keep in mind, this here is NOT A VOTE, only stating opinions. At any rate, even if this article somehow gets merged, the list of towns and settlements is going to be on its own. (LAz17 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
- The list doesn't have potential to expand so much that it needs its own article. Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is going to be expanded big time. Oh yeah. Keep in mind, this here is NOT A VOTE, only stating opinions. At any rate, even if this article somehow gets merged, the list of towns and settlements is going to be on its own. (LAz17 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
- Redirect to
Geography of CroatiaRepublic of Serbian Krajina. From WP:PAST: Titles of named settlements from the past that currently exist under a different name or as part of a larger notable place should redirect to the current location unless there is plenty of information to build a standalone article. Even aside from the fact that the self-proclaimed Republic of Serbian Krajina was never recognized as an independent entity, from a geographical standpoint, Serbian Krajina is still a Croatian territory. Thus, any geographical information provided Geography of the Former Republic of Serbian Krajina will undoubtedly overlap with Geography of Croatia. — Rankiri (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If redirected, it should be to Republic of Serbian Krajina. The article's main focus is town lists and population stats, which is more appropriate for that article. There's nothing sourceable to worth merging in Geography of Croatia. Spellcast (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a closer look at the article, I concur. — Rankiri (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment First, see this, List of Gaue of Nazi Germany - it's of the past. Second, please see the former discussions that we had about this... You can see them here... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATowns_in_the_Former_RSK&diff=248424760&oldid=248424230 (LAz17 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
- Administrative division can change almost overnight; regional geography is not that impermanent. I still don't see a good reason in forking content from Republic of Serbian Krajina and Geography of Croatia. — Rankiri (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography is not merely landforms. It is far more, from population structure, to economy, to much much more. At any rate, I would rather wait and see what others have to say about this. In the worst case scenario we will put part of it back into Republic of Serb Krajina and the rest into Towns of RSK, and work on expanding that into subdivisions of RSK. (LAz17 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
- Delete as redundant to articles on the geography of the actual countries that existed. Fails WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Roma minority of Hungary. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hungarian discrimination against Roma people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is a POV fork of Roma minority of Hungary. The article is pure WP:SYNTH, as it uses flawed logic to attribute Roma social issues to discrimination from non-Romas. I believe this article should be deleted (the contents are all duplicated in the main article) and the section from the main article retitled and cleaned up to be in compliance with policy. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Into Roma minority of Hungary Computerjoe's talk 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, looks sourced. brandt 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I compared this article with Roma minority of Hungary. Every single reference from this article is already in the other one, and I believe all the text is there too (barring small differences in wording). So there is really nothing to merge. It seems to me that 'Hungarian discrimination against Roma people' is a POV title, and if the title is kept, even as a redirect, it would need to be reworded somehow. If we go ahead and delete the 'discrimination' article then the problem goes away and we don't have to solve it. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back - a separate (mostly redundent) article is not needed, unless a lot more cites can be found. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. overall consensus was to delete and the few keeps reasoning didn't hold up compared to the other reasoning given Nja247 15:16, 7 June 2009 (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}} . |
- Rule 34 (Internet meme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about an xkcd webcomic joke with no other references. Claimed that it's an internet meme, but the only references are to xkcd (and wetriffs.com, a website created by xkcd's author). From my google search, I found no relevant news results, and the only web results are other user-generated sites like encyclopedia dramatica (encyclopediadramatica.com/Rules_Of_The_Internet), [wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_rule_34 WikiAnswers], and Urban Dictionary. Given that the original "rule 34" xkcd comic was posted in August 2007, there's been plenty of time for people to go create UD entries/etc. based on that comic, so none of them are evidence of real notability. And I should also mention that another xkcd-inspired article, Neutrality Schmeutrality, was deleted by overwhelming consensus. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- This isn't a keep or a delete vote, but I just wanted to ask- How long have you been on the internet and you haven't heard of Rule 34? Seriously. This isn't something XKCD came up with off the top of their head, its been around for YEARS. Whether that translates to real world notability, I don't know, but I just wanted to point that out. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt Rule 34 was speedy-deleted several times with the exact same content until it was finally overwritten to be about an unrelated Rule 34 which is notable. The meme is most certainly not notable in that there is no non-trivial coverage of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No encyclopedic value. Falls under WP:NOTDIC, possibly even WP:MADEUP. — Rankiri (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete,
possible redirect to xkcd. As much as I'm a fan of xkcd, I've said many times before that we simply can't have articles about in-jokes from the series or individual cartoons. Ultimately, the WP:NOTDIC and WP:MADEUP stated above. Greg Tyler (t • c) 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- No redirect, due to Soap's comment below. I had a feeling that it wasn't xkcd-y, but made the foolhardy mistake of trusting the article in question. Greg Tyler (t • c) 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Only potential source I can find. And just fyi, potentially the original image, via this thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, it's more than just XKCD and it didn't even originate there. It actually started at 4chan and/or Uncyclopedia. But that doesn't mean its notable whatsoever. This is a WP:DICDEF with little information. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a spiritual violation of G4 (seeing as Rule 34 was salted for years, before being made into a completely different article) Sceptre (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. Created under a different title to shirk the deletion process. Nice try. MuZemike 23:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is obviously going to get deleted but I just want to set people straight that Rule 34 has nothing whatsoever to do with xkcd and that while I don't think this will ever get beyond the status of a dictionary definition, and probably can't be saved, it bothers me to see so many incorrect deletion rationales from so many people. I guess I can add that I would be against redirecting to xkcd for that reason; it has no relation to the webcomic other than that xkcd mentioned it briefly in one comic. Note I changed my vote from 'comment' to 'keep'; I dont know how you can decide if a meme is notable or not, but please consider my recent edits to the article. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Sceptre and MuZemike. While I sympathize with Soap's point of view, fact of the matter is this is a recreation of a salted article. DRV is the place to take arguments that the article should be remade. JuJube (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary' 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IMO this is a well known 'Rule' of the internet, references at Urban Dictionary and its own domain. It is also used as a regular game on BoingBoing. There should also be some form of link from Rule 34. People who do not know of this rule will turn to Wikipedia to find out what it means. sijarvis (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the nomination statement. Having a reference at Urban Dictionary is meaningless; Urban Dictionary is user-generated and full of all kinds of junk and personal jokes. As for rule34.com, that's not "its own domain", it's a porn site. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I didn't get beyond the front page of rule34.com, however it does state the 'rule' there. Also the bulk of Google hits refer to the meme rule rather than the one described at Rule 34, even the meme Wikipedia page has a higher Google rank than Rule 34. I'm realising as I write this that it's not the best argument for keeping it although I feel more that there is no reason not to. Surely the amount of mentions on even user generated sites mean that it is noteworthy enough to feature. I'll admit I've not been very familiar with all the Wikipedia policies for the last few years, but I don't see why this should be scrapped. sijarvis (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the nomination statement. Having a reference at Urban Dictionary is meaningless; Urban Dictionary is user-generated and full of all kinds of junk and personal jokes. As for rule34.com, that's not "its own domain", it's a porn site. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until there are some references beyond ED and UrbanDictionary, I wouldn't consider this notable. As of right now it's just an in-joke. Perhaps that may change... after all, other internet memes such as "Rickrolling" had articles which were deleted, only to be recreated once they became more notable. At this point "Rule 34" isn't quite there yet. Prezboy1 talk 14:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I'd suggest that this doesn't need to come round again, those advocating deletion would put their energies to better use by pushing for a merge. Flowerparty☀ 00:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hollie Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also a WP:MUSICBIO failure. Otterathome (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a news item, not a long term piece of knowledge. It's a perfectly good news item, but it's still trivia, and as such has no place in an encyclopedia. This is no judgement on Hollie Steel, it's a matter of "what is knowledge". 19:00, 3 June 2009 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpgcwiki (talk • contribs)
- The topic is not trivial as it has sparked action by the UK government. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... which belongs in a discussion at the BGT page. Steel may have been a victim, but that does not make her notable. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and or Merge to the appropriate series. As an aside, seriously, a third AFD in the space of a month? Really? You couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "couldn't have just opened a merge discussion in on the article's talk page?" There is already a small discussion of about whether there should be a merge and one on whether or not it should be deleted. I won't vote yet, i would leave it a day or two to see what media attention she might receive in the dailies. A day after the competition has ended is perhaps too soon for a discussion on whether or not it should be deleted, especially considering Cowell's record of signing up the finalist. Uksam88 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable enough to be documented in the wikipedia, the extent of media coverage regarding the subject available also indicates the article should be kept. --Da Vynci (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How does "one of ten finalists on the third series of the ITV reality show" imply notability? The subject obviously fails WP:MUSICBIO, falls under WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rankiri (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per our guideline notability is established "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." This topic has massive coverage in such sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic, and I'm not at all sure that a losing contestant of a reality show can be seen as encyclopedic and historically notable. WP:N itself makes it clear that media sensationalism should not be used as a sole determinant of one's notability: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute...However, 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 sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event. WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS provide much more specific and relevant instructions and the subject happens to fail all three of them. — Rankiri (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three). She has no notibility. If she has a page then why hasn't Stavros Flatley got one? Or 2 Grand? Or Shaun Smith? She was one of the finalists who got nowhere and doesn't look like she will be getting anywhere anytime soon. She is 10 years old and has proved that she would be unable to perform frequently and I doubt she'll get a record deal. When nothing happens with her in two months time, it will be deleted, so why not get rid of it now? It doesn't even contain any info that couldn't be explained in BGT Series 3 page. I think a list of BGT Series 3 finalists page should be created (a bit like The X Factor contestants one) and Hollie can be in there.
- These other finalists do have articles, as may be seen from the blue links. Making this highly notable topic a red link like your proposed destination would be absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look more carefully. One is to a redirect to the parent article, one is to a DAB page (there is no actual relevant article) and the other is to an article also up for AfD. I42 (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have an account but I am not logged in atm so I would still like you to consider this statement even though it is by an IP user 83.71.56.210 (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, despite the fact I hope we can write a biography on her later. Currently, she is notable only for her appearance on the show, and so any pertinent information should be included in the articles on the show. If she gets signed, releases an album, has a film made about her or something, then we can reconsider. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is already notable for other matters such as her medical history and return to school which have been headline items. This third party coverage demonstrates clear notabilty for all aspects of this person, not just her performances. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: The story is not over for Miss Steel. Many who lost have gone onto fame and fortune and deserve to have their story in our wiki. --Dane Sorensen (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Dane Sorensen[reply]
- Yes, those who go onto fame and fortune do. Has Hollie? No. Will she? Possibly. The article can be recreated if and when she becomes known for something outside of the show. J Milburn (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Making predictions is a bad thing.--Otterathome (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She will most likely be forgotten in a month. No notabilityJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability does not expire but, in any case, it is already over a month and her notability continues to climb. Yesterday, the cabinet minister responsible for culture and the arts commented specifically, "She gave a fantastic performance in the final..."
- Delete as I said in AFD#1, this is a textbook case of BLP1E. She is not notable for anything other than being the object of media attention for one day a few weeks ago, then again for crying on stage. Unlike Susan Boyle, she isn't a human interest story. Unlike Diversity, she didn't win. Unlike Julian Smith, she didn't even place. And unlike Shaheen Jaffacake, she wasn't even known about until her audition. And finally, she's ten years old. We should have as few articles about minors as possible, and the articles we do have about children need to have airtight assertions of notability. This is not. Sceptre (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think your ethnic slur helps your argument in any positive way. Radiopathy •talk• 01:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...there's an ethnic slur there? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shaheen Jaffacake...?" 83.71.35.103 (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a nickname that me and my sister coined because we couldn't remember his last name, only that it began with "Jaf". Sceptre (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no more an ethnic slur than calling me "J Milby". J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe not an ethnic slur per se, but it seems like you're making fun of him, or calling him "Jaffacakes" because a Middle Eastern name is "too hard to pronounce", or whatever. Radiopathy •talk• 15:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can easily be seen as an ethnic slur. Editor explination shows good faith. I suggest all editors should be more careful in future without saying what was said was wrong. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP: This little girl is EXTRAORDINARY and already famous across the globe. Worldedixor (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BGT is famous across the world. She is not famous in any other context therefore this is a case of WP:1E. I42 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Passes WP:NOTNEWS: we're not talking cat-up-a-tree stuff here. Passes WP:1E with a lot of international media coverage. Radiopathy •talk•
- Placed would mean they came in first or second or third. Being in the finals does not mean they placed. It means they were a finalist, nothing more, nothing less, which does not meet criterion #9.--Terrillja talk 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BGT is a major music competition since when?--Otterathome (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A show that's broadcast to the entire UK and seen by millions of people is major, yes. This isn't a local church cantata or something like that. Radiopathy •talk• 00:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, from WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEVENT:
- Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic... If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
- The way I see it, this little girl is no Lee Harvey Oswald. — Rankiri (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing more notable than other finalists. --Saigon punkid (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have links and articles for the other finalists, such as Susan Boyle with whom the world's media have repeatedly made direct comparisons. The precedent is therefore clearly that we should maintain this material rather than deleting it and leaving a gaping hole. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Susan Boyle gained more coverage but this is anyway moot - she was placed in the top 3, Steel was not. I42 (talk) 08:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Radiopathy. We can revisit this in the future if need be. A merge and redirect would be my second choice. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Britains's Got Talent Season 3 Most of the references are tabloids, definitely not the most reliable sources, and what has been stated by them was later refuted by the subject of the article, see the talkpage now. I would support a few sentences in the contest article on her, but moving her entire article over there would be WP:UNDUE. If she later goes on to make a career in music and meets our criteria for general notability or music, I would hold no prejudice against recreating the article, but at this point we are grasping at straws to talk about what she will become. I do not however see her as meeting the criteria for inclusion at this time.--Terrillja talk 06:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. She does not fail NOT#NEWS but she does fail BLP1E. I don't consider BGT a 'major music competition' for the purposes of WP:MUSIC. That said, she quite obviously should have won. MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (Series 3). She isn't notable besides her BGT participation. Unlike some people that have
played small roles in TV showsappeared in a number of ads, or won a National Dancing Competition beforehand. Also, her placement is not high enough to qualify per WP:MUSIC.--Alasdair 11:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quite clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. It's quite possible she'll gain inependent notability in the future but WP:CRYSTAL makes it quite clear that has no bearing right now. I42 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP1E is not appropriate, being for "low profile" people, not artists whose performances generate headlines around the world. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The only reason she is notable is due to the current media attention surrounding her performance in the semi-final. Once the news has blown over, the article will no longer be notable. 84.67.89.61 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pyrrhus16 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no choice under policy, she is notable for a single event, you don't get an article for that. I would rather wait a month and see if she gets any further attention or not, but we don't have a procedure for deferring judgement of AFDs, so we'll just have to undelete the article if she does get the additional attention required. --Tango (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeper WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banjeboi 23:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Changing to Keep, She's going on a national tour so will undoubtably meet our WP:GNG with rounds of media coverage whether or not she continues a singing career. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This national tour would be the Britain's Got Talent tour, of course. I42 (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep, She's going on a national tour so will undoubtably meet our WP:GNG with rounds of media coverage whether or not she continues a singing career. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Britain's Got Talent (series three)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.217.69 (talk • contribs)
- K E E P !!! YEARS WILL PASS AND PEOPLE WILL NEED A REFERENCE, WHICH IS THE PURPOSE OF AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND OF WIKIPEDIA. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER PEOPLE LIKE OR DON'T LIKE THE CHARACTER, IT'S SIMPLY A REFERENCE. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE AND ACT ACCORDINGLY !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osantaella (talk • contribs) 02:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect Pitiful argument. Where's the reference to the little girl who got all the way up to the final in the third season of Starsearch, but then lost? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect → Britain's Got Talent (series 3), which is where all these finalists should remain until we see what they do next. pablohablo. 09:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree in spirit but we should treat each seperately as they may have prior and secondary notability issues besides their reality TV fame. -- Banjeboi 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep A disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DEL. The person is making news yet again today for two reasons as the regulator OFCOM has got involved and the government says that it is going to act. This was on the BBC Radio just now and it is easy to find continuing news items from the last 24 hours which headline this person with big splash photos, e.g. this and that There is no case to answer here as deletion is quite inappropriate. The proper process has not been followed as the nominator has not made the slightest attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. The claims of policy support BLP1E and NOT NEWS are both quite bogus: the first because this person is not low profile and the second because this is not a routine news story like a weather forecast or traffic report. This topic is a summary of major news items which have had worldwide coverage. It is clearly our policy to incude such and our readership expects it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I FULLY AGREE with your Speedy Keep (this is not an additional vote) - I also want to add that Hollie is being recognized as notable in the US and the UK and interviewed on several major networks. Worldedixor (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Britain's Got Talent has been hugely successful this year and is being recognised as notable worldwide. Like him or not, Simon Cowell knows what he's doing. Is Hollie Steel independently notable? Not yet. She may well have a bright future and when she does we will have an article about her then. I42 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate vote.--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A month after the first nomination, and back here once again. Her age is unique for any performer. She has plenty of coverage in third party new media. She meets all requirements for an article. Dream Focus 09:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Of a disruptive nomination. Returning an article to AfD over and over, and repeating ad nasuem the same delete arguments over and over, simply because one is unhappy that it was not deleted on previous occasions, is the worst sort of repeat disruptive nomination and meets the definitions of WP:POINT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was one AFD a month ago that was no consensus, it seems sensible to me to hold another AFD once the situation has developed more to see if there is a consensus now. (The 2nd AFD was immeadiately withdrawn since the nomination was a simple mistake.) --Tango (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - still, a disruptive nom; the only thing that's apparent here is that the subject's notability ihas increased, not diminished, since the first nom. The second nom, BTW, was not "a simple mistake", but rather a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE, and like this one, demonstrates more of a bias against the subject of the article than any regard for Wikipedia policy. Radiopathy •talk•
- Of course the 2nd was a mistake. The nominator thought she had been eliminated when she hadn't, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Whether it would have been a legitimate nomination or not, had it been correct, is irrelevant, it still shouldn't be counted as a previous AFD since no discussion took place. The subject's notability has increases, but her potential notability has decreased. During the last AFD she was a potential TV talent contest winner, during this one she is not. Whether or not you think we ought to keep or delete articles based on potential notability, that is still a change that the nominator good, in good faith, consider worth reopening the discussion. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1st AfD was closed as "keep" on May 12, 2009 (3 weeks ago). 2nd AfD on May was closed as "keep" on May 27, 2009 (9 days ago). 1st AfD was and was modified from "keep" to "no consensus" on May 24, 2009 (12 days ago) after a DRV disputed that 1st closure. Now we have a 3rd AfD within 3 weeks of previous AfDs and the DRV, all repeating the same arguments from the previous deletion discussions. 3 actions in 3 weeks? Sorry, but I see the continued efforts to delete this article as as disruptive even with the greatest of good faith in the repeated nominations, as repeated nominations of an article in any editor's refusal to accept the decisions of earlier discussions runs totally contrary to the POLICY standards set forth in WP:CONSENSUS. Sure, consensus can change... but in 3 weeks?? Nope. No sale. No offense intended, but it seems too much like pointed gaming to suit me. Common sense and civility would seem to indicate that allowing an article to be improved, improves the project as a whole... specially as her notabilty continues to grow {and not diminish as is claimed). All one needs do is check the news. Open a new AfD in 3 months... not 3 weeks. Sheesh. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. Worldedixor (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate vote.--Otterathome (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- - Striking duplicate phrase. Those are not duplicate votes. Everyone knows that one person one vote. My ONE vote is expressly and unmistakably for SPEEDY KEEP.Worldedixor (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the 2nd was a mistake. The nominator thought she had been eliminated when she hadn't, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Whether it would have been a legitimate nomination or not, had it been correct, is irrelevant, it still shouldn't be counted as a previous AFD since no discussion took place. The subject's notability has increases, but her potential notability has decreased. During the last AFD she was a potential TV talent contest winner, during this one she is not. Whether or not you think we ought to keep or delete articles based on potential notability, that is still a change that the nominator good, in good faith, consider worth reopening the discussion. --Tango (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - still, a disruptive nom; the only thing that's apparent here is that the subject's notability ihas increased, not diminished, since the first nom. The second nom, BTW, was not "a simple mistake", but rather a blatant disregard for WP:BEFORE, and like this one, demonstrates more of a bias against the subject of the article than any regard for Wikipedia policy. Radiopathy •talk•
- There was one AFD a month ago that was no consensus, it seems sensible to me to hold another AFD once the situation has developed more to see if there is a consensus now. (The 2nd AFD was immeadiately withdrawn since the nomination was a simple mistake.) --Tango (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have edited your previous contributions (against guidelines) to make it appear that you did not make multiple !votes, but it is clear from the article history that when Otterarhome made his comment you had explicitly made three separate !votes. Since then, and after you were reminded this was not allowed, you have made a further new comment below which has the appearance of a fourth !vote. Your opinion is as valid as any other but might I suggest it is likely to be discounted by the closing admin if you continue to ignore policy. I42 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I find your lack of faith disturbing. As this is not a vote, repeat comments are quite permissible and you have made repeated comments yourself. Please see Tu quoque. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course multiple comments are allowed - but, as I said, multiple !votes are not. You only get to recommend keep/delete/merge/whatever once, unless you strike your previous recommendation. There is no lack of good faith here; the multiple !votes were correctly struck, that was partially undone by the original editor, so the policy has been more clearly explained. This is a lively debate which is getting somewhat passionate so let's try to comment on the article and not the credentials of the contributors. I42 (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My position is that we should remove all digressions about the nature of !votes now that this enthusiatic editor has shown good faith and willingness to amend their comments to avoid confusion. Finger-pointing and scolding in a pseudo-officious way does not assist amicable discussion. Please remove all such irrelevant templates and digressions to assist in the smoothing over of this matter per WP:COOL. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have edited your previous contributions (against guidelines) to make it appear that you did not make multiple !votes, but it is clear from the article history that when Otterarhome made his comment you had explicitly made three separate !votes. Since then, and after you were reminded this was not allowed, you have made a further new comment below which has the appearance of a fourth !vote. Your opinion is as valid as any other but might I suggest it is likely to be discounted by the closing admin if you continue to ignore policy. I42 (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, she is a very talented little girl, but the fact that she has appeared on the show and will be in the tour does not make her notable enough to have an article dedicated to her. This article should be deleted, and perhaps re-opened in years to come if she is successful in her career, should she continue to perform. For now, though, she is not notable and therefore the article should be deleted. ElphaPearl (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable gameshow contestant. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I already voted for STRONG KEEP above. I want to add that when I first heard of Hollie Steele, my FIRST instinct was to look her up in Wikipedia... Keeping the article and improving it would do Wikipedia justice. Worldedixor (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete There is nothing in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC that suggests subject is sufficiently notable for an article, and WP:BIO1E rules against whatever notability arises from being an unsuccessful contestant. Wikipedia is not the place for items of ephemeral interest. Johnuniq (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are 10 applicable reasons taken from the guidelines that you cite. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
- "...significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"
- "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
- "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."
- "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
- "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
- "...as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified."
- "Has won or placed in a major music competition."
- "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable"
- "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."
- OK, let's have a look at those points one by one.--Alasdair 10:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Hollie was given coverage solely due to her BGT performances. No matter how many sources there are it's still a matter of BLP1E.
- No, some of the coverage relates to other matters such as her remarkable medical history or her doings at school. People are interested her now as a person - they want to know everything about her. This is not our judgement to make - this is the judgement of independent reliable sources, per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Children have been participating in talent shows around the world for ages. There is nothing that makes her any more significant or interesting.
- The existence of lasting global coverage for this topic demonstrates that you are mistaken - the matter is clearly considered both significant and interesting. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. I don't see how a Hollie's performances are so historically valuable, considering that there are so many people like her in the past.
- There are few people like her in the past - I can think of just two Bonnie Langford and Lena Zavaroni. We have ample space for such a handful of entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two are not similar - they went on to have independent fame. When, and only when, Steel does the same, then she should have an independent article. That you can only think of those two is a perfect illustration of why that is so. I42 (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are few people like her in the past - I can think of just two Bonnie Langford and Lena Zavaroni. We have ample space for such a handful of entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. Every talent show contestant has fans during their time in the show. However, it can not be assured that many of them are not brought in during the heat of the moment. It's questionable whether a reasonable niche can be retained in the long run unless there is evidence that suggests that her fanbase is large enough.
- We do not require exact numbers because there is no formal test. It is a matter of common sense by which we should not delete an article when there is reasonable evidence that there is a significant readership for it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. Again, there is nothing unique and innovative about a child soprano singing in a talent show, considering the many that have done before her.
- There are several distinctive features - her serious illness, her tears, her second chance and the resulting ministerial interest. Again, it is not our call to decide such notability - the test is performed by third parties for us who show that the matter is distinctive by their abundant coverage. We are not judges - it is other third parties who have the red buzzers. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 6. This also contradicts with BLP1E. Former contestants of other talent shows get articles written due to additional things (i.e. releasing new singles, albums etc.) rather than their time on the show. I don't think Hollie should be an exception.
- We have explicit guidelines for other shows which say that finalists merit separate articles. This show is clearly of outstanding global interest and so should have deeper coverage than other shows, not less. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Hollie's role within BGT won't grow any larger now that this series is finished, not beyond the on coming BGT tour.
- We already have enough material for a substantial separate article. Folding all this into the show's main article would be diffcult owing to the size of the coverage and the details which are purely related to her, not the show. Moreover, the tour will generate further coverage, as will the government's actions, which are just starting. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 8. I would agree if she placed in the final 3. Finishing off the podium isn't a high enough placement for that to be warrented.
- There were two levels of reward - outright winner, with its £100K prize, and finalist, with its place on the tour and payments for same. Hollie is in the same place as Susan Boyle - successful finalist. She seems far more notable than that saxaphone guy, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 9. This is probably the most valid statement but considering she doesn't have anything else to vouch for her, Hollie ought to be redirected to the BGT series 3 article.
- One reason is enough as topics are not required to qualify upon multiple counts. To delete an article, you have to demonstrate that it is completely without merit - a hopeless case. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 10. #OK, so she appeared in Joseph and the Technicolor Dreamcoat. But has she played in any roles beyond extremely peripheral ones, such as those kids who accompany the narrator? I'd agree with this had she played something like the child version of Cossette.
- We already have multiple performances in her separate appearances on BGT which have attracted separate independent coverage. I am not familiar with her other show appearances but they indicate that this is not a one-off - she has a developing career. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's agree to disagree then. Since we intepret the guidelines differently. However, point 9 you referred to has a bracket stating the possibility of redirect, and that I disagree with all your other points, I still believe in redirects.--Alasdair 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the proposition put by the nominator is that the article be deleted, lock stock and barrel so that nothing remains - no content, no edit history and no redirection. If other editors were as reasonable as yourself, we would not be having this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's agree to disagree then. Since we intepret the guidelines differently. However, point 9 you referred to has a bracket stating the possibility of redirect, and that I disagree with all your other points, I still believe in redirects.--Alasdair 13:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have multiple performances in her separate appearances on BGT which have attracted separate independent coverage. I am not familiar with her other show appearances but they indicate that this is not a one-off - she has a developing career. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? Really tough one this- I can see that this will become increasingly common as time goes by. Wikipedia is a kind of imortality and it is certainly true that 'off the podium' people could dissappear without trace. Its difficult at the moment to see that it might be neccesary/realistic to delete a page for someone who is so high profile at present from an encyclopedia which has a seperate page for every underground station in London, yet we SHOULD consider this kind of thing very carefully as we could be setting the precedents for oodles of TV competitions and 9-day-wonder celebrities for the future. Myself I wouldn't have a problem with keeping a page for anyone from such a major competition as BGT, who makes it as far as the roadshow afterwards. If the producers consider it worthwhile keeping such people on the roadshow, they stand a reasonable chance of maintaining/establishing themselves. Although its true that the page could be revived later, I see no harm in keeping the page for a few months- really, if we imagine that a reasonable number of people will want to look at the page in the next two months, then it might as well be there- I do, so imo it should. If we really want to delete the page, its not the end of the world- however I do think we should consider a compromise, such as creating a seperate page for the Roadshow finalists of each season with a small article on each. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A proposal for consensus. There are aparrently quite polarised views here and unless the closing admin sees a strong reason to do otherwise, I imagine this AfD will close No Consensus. Whilst that may be seen "as good as" keep, that will likely result in another AfD a few months down the line especially when, as I suspect, the news coverage dies down and we are all watching the next X Factor instead. But I don't think the views are actually that different - there's the "keep, she's in the press everywhere, she's notable and deserves her own article" argument, and there's the "she's part of Britain's Got Talent's notability and should be covered only as part of that" argument. Both of those arguments accept Wikipedia will cover her in some form, it's more a matter of emphasis and depth of coverage. I suggest we take inspiration from the X Factor articles and:
- We cover all ten of the finalists with brief biographies, as part of the Britain's Got Talent articles, ideally as a sub-article - as, for example, exists at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 5).
- We make the same assumption that the X Factor articles do: top three are inherently notable; the remainder have to go on to achieve independent notability for articles of their own (remember - there's an X Factor tour, too - that doesn't count!).
- All finalists which do not have their own article redirect to the biography list.
- That way we will preserve at least the bulk of this article plus all the other finalist articles (which have either gone, or look virtually certain to be deleted) whilst keeping within the context of BGT. When independent notability of sufficient significance is established (which to me implies participation in some notable event on their own merits - not because of BGT), then it is time to spin off an additional, separate article. (Eg: Hollie Steel lands a performance on the West End or has a hit record - independently notable; Hollie Steel turns on the Christmas lights because she's that girl off the telly - not notable; Hollie Steel signs up for a record deal - not yet notable but an indication she will be soon!).
- Is there any mood to agree? I42 (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and start the article with what you presently have. Ask admins to userfy any that need that and then allow the tour to come and go. Once that winds down look to appropriate merge discussions for any that still sow little promise. -- Banjeboi 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I welcome I42's constrcutive attitude but must beg to differ. The proposal is to have a rule but we don't do rules here because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Notability is not a matter of nice tidy rules. It is essentially driven by sources. If the world decides to notice a topic and write about it then it thereby becomes notable for our purposes because this is good evidence that the world wants to read about the topic and that we have good sources to summarise. This is the case for Hollie and so that's that. If this spoils some nice neat pattern that some editors wish to impose upon this material then that's too bad. Notice the way in which the main article Britain's Got Talent (series 3) has been constrained by the pattern-making attitude into a series of dry tables. These are almost unreadable and are not the style of article which we are supposed to produce. The current Hollie Steel article seems better in that it has a proper narrative structure and is of a digestible size. The tabular format may be useful in helping readers navigate this material but it should lead to proper articles which can actually be read. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are about these people/groups as BGT contestants, not as performers in their own right. Thus, if we are to consider them, it would seem most logical to consider them as BGT finalists- IE, collectively. If the subjects become notable in their own right, information about what they have achieved since the show can be included in a separate article- a standard biography. J Milburn (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden - I might not have expected full agreement, but I didn't really expect that rationale. I am not proposing rules - I am proposing we try to have an accepted framework which we reach by consensus - much like other similar events have. This seems to be exactly in the spirit of Wikipedia, where consensus is the preferred approach. This framework could not override existing policy, and would not be set in stone, but it could lead to a way forward which has majority support. I continue to believe that the deletion of this article would be correct under policy (and think that is likely to happen either now or in the near future - unless independent notability ensues) but I see the proposal as an acceptable alternative. It is one which the X Factor articles have already established so this is hardly a radical approach. I42 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep keep as there are definite sources and the repeat use of AFD until the outcome wanted is reached is slightly bewildering. Nja247 15:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shaun Smith (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to the appropriate series. There's enough verifiable information here that losing it goes against our best interests. Not sure if it should be kept as its own article, but deleting it should not be an option. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no verifiable information here other than that which pertains to Britain's Got Talent so delete per nom. There is nothing left to merge - that which isn't covered elsewhere is opinion and rumour - and none of it is sourced. I42 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with what the previous comment says, plus I'm unsure if being in the final is notable enough to warrant a page. Others like Shaheen Jafargholi may have the same standing with him in the competition, but Shaheen has attracted considerable attention away from the show, and overseas. As far as im aware, Shaun Smith has not. (Kyleofark (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete. Not yet notable for anything outside of the competition. If and when he gets signed, we can discuss the issue again. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete didn't place anywhere in the final. Not notable for anything else. Sceptre (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into the series article. Not notable enough... --Saigon punkid (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to the appropriate series. Maybe because the show was on weekend, there aren't any news, however this week we can know if he's signed. Ferpunk (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable enough. Pyrrhus16 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER as he was one of the stars of a show which got the biggest UK TV audience for 5 years and which starts a national live tour this month. I have added a couple of sources and there are many more available. Note also that deletion would contravene our editing policy as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see WP:ENTERTAINER being met. As you acknowledge, he was part of a show, not multiple shows - textbook WP:1E. I42 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been multiple events - the audition, the semi and the final. There will now be many more events as BGT goes on the road with the finalists as a stage show. There is already national media interest in this person and detailed coverage which provides ample sources for a separate article. There is absolutely no case for deletion as this would be contrary to our editing policy. Please note that your textbook, WP:BLP1E, says nothing about deletion: "In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.". And it is talking about low-profile people, which is no longer the case for this person. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the show involved multiple performances, it was still a single event - there is only one article about the series, after all. (In the same way that the two innings and five days of a cricket test match, and multiple different reports about a news event, each describe a single event.) I don't see how this person is no longer low profile - he is still only notable from his appearance on the single tv show and has no independent notability. I do not believe WP:PRESERVE is relevant - that says (paraphrasing) clean-up, don't remove but, specifically, "as long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article" - and the contention here is whether they do belong in a finished article or not. I do agree with you, per WP:BLP1E, that there should be a redirect to the main article, and the main article could even include more of a bio than it does - so long as the bio is not given undue weight. FWIW I also believe it is quite likely we will see more of Smith in the future but that means nothing now. I42 (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree that the article should not be deleted then please amend your delete summary opinion above. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is an editorial decision, not an administrative one. A redirect is required after a merge, but if there is nothing to merge, a redirect can simply be created. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (-> Colonel Warden) There was nothing in what I wrote that suggested I had altered my view and I would request you strike your comment suggesting I had. I42 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there was - you indicate that we require a redirect and so wish to retain this article heading. Above you state that there no sources but this is now incorrect. Please amend your !vote accordingly as deletion is not the way to retain such material. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only one show, so he hasn't starred in 'multiple' performances. Which criteria of WP:MUSICBIO does he pass? Because he doesn't seem to meet any of them.--Otterathome (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there have been multiple performances over a period of some weeks. The common title and setting does not make them the same. They have been broacast and reported seperately and there are more to come as the finalists go on a tour of the country making further performances. It is absurd to claim that this is one event. Try buying one ticket and then claiming admission to all performances... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which number of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria is that?--Otterathome (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers #1, #4 and #9. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 is all WP:1E coverage, #4/#9 BGT is not a concert tour and not a major music competition. So unless there's something I'm missing, you are mistaken.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing in all respects. BGT is a major music competion which consists of multiple events. It has already been touring parts of the UK such as Glasgow, Birmingham and London and continues with a series of tour dates in places such as Sheffield in which Shaun Smith is contracted to appear. Finalists receive payment for these tour appearances and so Shaun Smith is already a significant professional. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, sorry it's not a major music competition. In music competitions, participants only play music. BGT accepts any act doing anything (dancing/juggling/comedy etc) And BGT isn't a concern tour either, even he did decide to tour with them, it would be WP:CRYSTAL which would probably end up as trivial coverage anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it's a major music competition - one of the biggest. And his place in the ongoing tour is assured - it's all part of the contract. Why would we delete this article to put it back it 10 days or after the other numerous events which follow? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether this is a music tour or not, it is the BGT Tour, not the Shaun Smith tour, so WP:1E would still apply. Quibbling about whether there have been multiple appearances or not is entirely missing the point of WP:1E - it is the event, not the participant, that has the notability. Until he steps out of its shadow there should not be a separate article no matter how many times you see him on the show or how often the show is written about. So, #s 1 and 4 are discounted. #9 is perhaps open to interpretation, but the X Factor series established the precedent that "placed" means top 3 - which is why I !voted keep for Julian Smith (3rd), but not here. I42 (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers #1, #4 and #9. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which number of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria is that?--Otterathome (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there have been multiple performances over a period of some weeks. The common title and setting does not make them the same. They have been broacast and reported seperately and there are more to come as the finalists go on a tour of the country making further performances. It is absurd to claim that this is one event. Try buying one ticket and then claiming admission to all performances... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per WP:MUSICBIO #9 - Has won or placed in a major music competition. This is a talent contest which is a bit quibbly but deleting is not needed here. No prejudice for restoring once independent notability is secured. -- Banjeboi 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --haha169 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, he influenced the first ever appearance in a chart of a well-known song. At least ensure that is not lost by merging and redirecting this information. Thank you. --candle•wicke 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't you mean to say Merge instead of Keep then?--Otterathome (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Flawless (Dance Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Britain's Got Talent (series 3) or something like or something like Britain's Got Talent finalists (series 3). About the same proportion of people watched the final in the UK as watch the Superbowl in America, a description of the finalists would seem to be relevant to a description of the show and I don't see why verifiable information shouldn't be included somewhere when available. Guest9999 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as above. There's no reason for this verifiable information to be stricken from the site for such an encyclopedic topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above, not notable outside the competition yet. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete didn't place anywhere in the final. Not notable for anything else. Sceptre (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until the group has any significance outside Britain's Got Talent. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Again. Sigh. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good notability as evidenced by the numerous sources. 1E is not relevant because they have made and continue to make multiple performances which attract separate independent coverage and they are no longer low profile. NOTNEWS is not relevant as that guideline is intended for mundane matters like weather reports and traffic accidents, not artists with international notability. Deletion is uterrly inappropriate as, at the very least, we would retain the title as a useful search term. And the edit history should be retained regardless as deleting it would contravene the licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not "artists with international notability", they are contestants on a game show. Artists with international notability are known for more than just appearing on a game show, and receive coverage for what they're doing that is not coverage of the game show. Even if kept as a search term, there is no need to retain the history unless the content is merged somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the Los Angeles Times which reports Flawless getting a movie contract. This disposes of both of your complaints so now change your !vote, please. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any sources that say they have even started production yet? We also don't know how major or minor their role is. So that is very WP:CRYSTAL. It also doesn't help that they are trivial mentions either.--Otterathome (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Jamie☆S93 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Julian Smith (saxophonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No recording contract. Otterathome (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEEP HE IS AMAZING —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzie12344 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe that even if we delete this article now, will need to be re-created soon. Very popular now, recording deal and album will soon materialise.Will be similar to Escala_(group). --Sulfis (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whilst I disagree with User:Sulfis above (WP:CRYSTAL), the X Factor series established a precedent that the top three finalists are sufficiently notable for their own articles. I42 (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, not notable outside the competition yet. I fail to see finalists as inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; Simon is going after him for money. We know that albums are going to be released, an notability will be clear soon after we delete it. This is Susan Boyle and Jafargholi all over again. --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable and I think instead of deleting it we should try to improve it. Spiderone (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Article passes WP:Notability with Google News showing 880 results for "julian smith saxophonist", with more to come I am sure. Article simply needs improvement, and more than a day to do it. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per above just like ♫ Cricket02 (talk) says above i belive it passes WP:Notability.Kyle1278 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until we have some solid evidence of notability outside of the show. Jafargholi was kept because he has also had some notworthy acting roles, Boyle was a real "special case", so it's not fair to comapare to them. Though he was placed, third place on BGT doesn't seem to carry much weight- Johnston (last year's third place) was not considered notable until the record deal was confirmed- the precedent here is to delete until some third party notability comes up, not assume that they're notable because they will probably get themselves a deal. J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - one of top 3 finalists in a series watched by 18.5m [19], and sufficient press coverage (as per ♫ Cricket02 above) make Julian Smith sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article, in my view. (And yes, I think we may well see a recording deal from him in the next few weeks - although I concede that is crystal-ball-gazing). └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with User:I42 above --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly keep. Incredibly talented saxophonist with an original song choice, capable of molding the most unlikely songs to fit his style. Sure to be heard more of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.227.212 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep he did place third, getting almost as many votes as Susan Boyle, but there needs to be a better assertion of notability. And I think that there is a strong possibility he'll get signed onto Syco anyway. Sceptre (talk) 22:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability outside of Britain's Got Talent. There's a lot of WP:CRYSTAL going on in this AFD. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep – The reliable sources in the article show at least a minimal degree of notability. Merging can always be discussed outside of AFD. MuZemike 23:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOWBALL doesn't apply here as this is far from unanimous. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepSpeedy Keep. I don't know why but in articles for the USA talent shows, all finalists (12 in all) are notable, but for the English programmes of this type all but the champion get deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Vickers). By US guides here ALL finalists are notable. Let's stop demeaning UK talent please. --Triwbe (talk) 06:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joolz Gianni easily passes WP:BAND. --Triwbe (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree There needs to be some standardization of guidelines when it comes to finallists in ALL notable competitions. In addition to my comments above, I believe this individual ALSO passes WP:Music #9 Has won or placed in a major music competition. (I interpret this to mean talent competition as well when the finalist is a musician). ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, the guidelines should be made more conservative, so that they are inline with our 1 event guidelines. As a universal guideline, that should come before the WikiProject guidelines that relate to one TV show. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that too. However, in this case, I cite from WP:BLP1E that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. It is my personal opinion that at least the top 3 in any of these competitions to be a large individual role, where millions upon millions of votes have been cast, and people will want to come here to learn more about the finalists. (Nice to be on the opposite side of an argument with you for once my friend). :) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just thinking that! I can't believe I still argue to delete these- I love BGT, and I really enjoy writing articles about the contestants. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that too. However, in this case, I cite from WP:BLP1E that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. It is my personal opinion that at least the top 3 in any of these competitions to be a large individual role, where millions upon millions of votes have been cast, and people will want to come here to learn more about the finalists. (Nice to be on the opposite side of an argument with you for once my friend). :) ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If anything, the guidelines should be made more conservative, so that they are inline with our 1 event guidelines. As a universal guideline, that should come before the WikiProject guidelines that relate to one TV show. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to X-Factor/Idol WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS comments, those shows are musical shows, being a finalists makes them pass criteria 9 of WP:MUSIC. BGT is a general talent show, not a musical competition. And if you hadn't noticed, most finalists of those musical competitions have released at least one single or album. The 'oh he's so good and popular, he's bound to get a recording contract' is a big WP:CRYSTAL comment.--Otterathome (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the subject has already recorded professionally, talk of WP:CRYSTAL is quite mistaken. Per WP:BEFORE, please research topics before bringing them to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Otterathome. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Idol_series#Biographies_of_contestants is not WP:OTHERSTUFF, it is the application of existing wikiconsensus on what is notable on an existing highly comparable subject. It more relevant because it has been developed for this exact situation, unlike WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:1E which are for more generic cases. Such guides exist in specific sports, arts and science bios as well. --Triwbe (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus was for articles on finalists in musical competitions, not general talent competitions.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm an American, but series 3's gotten so much press, people here are watching it on Youtube, and at least in my case, turning to Wikipedia for information on major contestants, including Julian Smith. I personally think for notable contestants on notable shows, they ought to have an article at least temporarily. Notability can be a transient thing in these cases, so why can't such an article if the contestant ends up fading away? We are not set in paper. Deletionists seem to think we've got to make the decision to delete right away. How does that increase the utility of Wikipedia? —Tox (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is not what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not here to showcase the current "thing"- it is not a newspaper, it is not a gossip magazine. It's an encyclopedia. Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered. Notability is not transient- fame is transient, notability is not. J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does cover current news - just see the main page for its section In the News which routinely covers current events.
- Did you even read what I said? "Yes, we're quicker to cover things than other encyclopedias, but that does not mean we should be inclined to cover things that should not be covered." So, sure, we cover elections before paper encyclopedias, but there's no need to have articles on gossip, to have articles about local news stories or have a whole article on a single event (unless that event is particularly notable). J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not local news, it is global. And it's not a single event - it's multiple events. There is not the slightest case to answer here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was replying to Tox, attempting to demonstrate the flaws in his arguments generally, rather than talking specifically about Smith. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Highly notable topic for which many sources are available. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, much of this seems to focus on his recent career but his discography seems to date from 2001 and he seems to have performed with several notable people. --candle•wicke 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Montenegro–Switzerland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
it seems the Montenegrin embassy in Geneva is preoccupied with UN relations because I couldn't find anything on bilateral relations just in multilateral context (except of course some football). Swiss Foreign ministry doesn't say much except they recognise Montenegro. French search. English search. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is not much content or usefulness in this article. Wandering Courier (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, almost no relations exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any depth Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing from any other sort asserts notability, and isn't likely too at this stage anyway. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joshua Hill (American soccer player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:ATHLETE. Appears to have played college soccer, followed by a number of attempts to sign for European teams. But lacking any evidence these occurred, no cites, and article has a history of fallacies being added. Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if everything in the article were sourced, we'd still only have a semi-professional footballer, and they're no more notable than minor-league baseball players, who are virtually always deleted — you have to be fully professional, not just semi-. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- do not delete I have coached and known this player for over 10 years. Not only have I seen this player grow as an athlete but as a respectable person as well.I had even tried to recruit him while I coached at the university of Hartford. I believe that the current version of the article is due justice for all of the hard work put into his career. I would also like to add that la liga segunda A and B divisions in Spain are all fully professional leagues. I personally watched Josh during his play there.I will send citations in due time. Sincerely - Richard Rollins former U of Hartford goalkeeper coach and star goalkeeper academy national director —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.144.189 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cites would be good, please supply. But unfortunately it's all been promised before. This article has consistently overstated his achievements and has even had fictional events added to it. So much so that all uncited material can only be viewed with scepticism. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I agree cites would be good. Have searched extensively and failed to find anything - obviously WP:GNG isn't going to save him so he is hanging by the faint hope of WP:ATHLETE assuming claims of competitive game time at Malaga are real - but until it is verifiable I don't buy it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues doesn't list Segunda División B as fully professional league so CE L'Hospitalet cites would need to be pretty damn good. I don't doubt he exists, but he doesn't seem to have achieved notability--ClubOranjeT 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article does claim that he "saw action with the Harrisburg City Islanders", who are in USL2, which we take to be a fully pro league. However, there is no proof of this. Unless some can be provided, I go for delete. Also, the article reads like a resume from the player's agent. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable subject. If proof he meets both WP:ATHLETE and WP:N is provided, then I might change my mind, but I don't see any evidence of this here. --Angelo (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single mention of him, or any other American keeper for that matter, at Excelsior anywhere on the internet. And besides, the club would never even consider paying the Dutch non-EU minimum footballers wage for a keeper. 62.163.32.2 (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Help with this article Keepertastic here I need help with this article I have the backing evidence of the account of this player. But when I put the links up they do not appear as the others have. And as for the EU minimum comment the player in question according to the U.S. Soccer Federation played on a Swedish Passport. Please help with this and is there anyway to translate the articles because they are in something called Catalan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepertastic (talk • contribs) 18:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Nja247 15:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cory High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A proposed school that will not open until 2011. Firstly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Secondly, what is this school actually notable for? All we have at this date is a press release with a name for the school. While no doubt the argument claiming high schools are inherently notable will be made, how can this argument (an incredibly weak one when used for existing schools) be used to justify keeping articles on schools two years away from opening? Mattinbgn\talk 12:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages as they are all created together and the same arguments above apply to them as well:[reply]
- John Monash Science School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nossal High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\talk 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all — I believe that established high schools are notable, but the crystal ball bit does get in the way of this a little bit :-) No way that these can be deserving of articles at this stage; perhaps recreate a few years down the line? Nyttend (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all three. As mentioned, WP:CRYSTAL. Can be re-written in the future if the schools are indeed notable. florrie 13:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep John Monash Science School Currently under construction[20] (not WP:CRYSTAL), 390+ google hits, notable as Victoria's first maths, science and technology secondary school.[21]. Melburnian (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are very few public selective schools in Australia, and very few that are built from scratch - I can't think of another one in the last couple of decades. As such, they're quite notable, and there's already been more than enough sources to merit an article - something which is guaranteed to grow as construction progresses on the three schools. The nominator is also wrong: two of the three schools are currently under construction and due to open at the start of the next school year. Rebecca (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all three per nom. Racepacket (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - already there are enough sources to establish verifiability. Take this for example which indicates that two of the schools will be notable for their selection policy. WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable since it is certain that these schools will open; they are in no different position to forthcoming CDs, for example, on which articles are created when their release date has been verified. Deleting now only to recreate later smacks of policy wonking. TerriersFan (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - all three schools are notable because they are the products of a major policy change in, and expansion of, selective schools in Victoria, Australia. They represent a doubling of the number of wholly selective schools in Victoria. Two of them have already closed their application process for 2010 (on 29 May 2009), so this is not "Crystal Balling". Plus, these are stubs, awaiting expansion. Plus they already have some references.--Design (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, and they are also notable for being purpose built. VCASS will move into a purpose built school in July 2009, but as far as I know, prior to this the last purpose built selective school in Victoria was Mac.Robertson High School over 80 years ago.--Design (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Nossal High and Cory High are notable because they will be the first schools in Victoria to be selective via general academic exam AND co-educational. Exam for Nossal/Melb. High/Mac.Rob will be held on 19 June 2009.
- Oh yes, and they are also notable for being purpose built. VCASS will move into a purpose built school in July 2009, but as far as I know, prior to this the last purpose built selective school in Victoria was Mac.Robertson High School over 80 years ago.--Design (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - none meet WP:ORG. Articles can be created later if they become notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more references to the John Monash Science School article, to further substantiate notability under WP:ORG. This stub will grow.--Design (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more refs from national and local news media for Nossal High.--Design (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more references to the John Monash Science School article, to further substantiate notability under WP:ORG. This stub will grow.--Design (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A number of sources have been added to these articles that contradict the nomination. WP:NOTVOTE. Rebecca (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting the notability guidelines. Substantial coverage for notable school being constructed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We as a practical matter consider all documented high schools notable, in large part to avoid debates like this--at least 90% of them will turn out to meet the criteria if someone works at it properly, & its not worth removing the other 10% --especially since AfDs surely have a greater error rate than that. True, this does not necessarily apply to totally new schools, but in this case there is sufficiently reliable information. DGG (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 15:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Denmark–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
simply being EU members is not enough to be a notable relationship, I found close to no evidence of actualy bilateral relations, all relations is in a multilateral EU context, a search of the Danish foreign ministry reveals nothing about bilateral relations Google news search only reveals multilateral and sport relations. like this recent football match. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - that they are EU members is recorded at, well, EU members; nothing else indicates notability to this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 16:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable soruces adress these non-notable relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nja247 15:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Darker Shades of White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unremarkable album, no awards or any major significance. ClubOranjeT 12:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Band's article was just tagged for A7 as I can't find a shred of notability nor any sources. If the parent article is deleted, then the album can go via A9. AlthoughI am curious as to what Christian metal sounds like: detuned, fuzzy guitars over harshly screamed vocals, but with Christian lyrics? That image just clashes like you can't imagine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted beyond being by a band that has an article (and is now at AFD), see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corpus Christi (band). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes WP:MUSIC#Albums for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Reviews here, here, here, here, here, and here. Esradekan Gibb "Klat" 10:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has reviews, band meets general notability standards. Royalbroil 03:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with the band article if it makes it through AFD, album not notable on it's own and the band article is not long enough to justify splitting off info. Ridernyc (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep band article notable enough to keep so is album has professional reviews by Christian and secular magazines and websites. Djc wi (talk) 06:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:ALBUMS doesn't ask for awards or major honors. It's an officially released album with multiple reviews that show the subject has been covered by reliable sources, and thus meets the notability guidelines. Esradekan provides good examples above. Jamie☆S93 14:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Could have been speedy deleted, per author request, but apparently this went unnoticed. Jamie☆S93 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Josh Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Actor with one appearance in a soap and some minor commercial and extra work, fails WP:ENT. Also no citations apart from imdb. Google search reveals no liklihood of finding citations. Grcaldwell (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Racepacket (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not-notable, not much more to say - Vartanza (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you guys can delete it now i only needed it for college work. Bobdol123
- YOU CAN DELETE IT NOW DO YOU NEED A GUIDE TO ENGLISH OR SOMETHING? Bobdol123 —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alcides Moreno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This person is notable only for having "miraculously" survived a 47-storey fall in a window cleaning gondola in December 2007. This was previously nominated about a month after the initial event and generated no consensus. Now with about 18 months perspective it is clear that he has not got long-term notability and the article should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. At the very most he deserves a one sentence entry in a list of people who have survived falls from great heights type article (if one exists) Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have notified every significant contributor to the article (excluding those who declare they have left the project) and everyone who commented on the first AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability does not expire and, in any case, here is recent coverage from all over the world which demonstrates that the nomination's assertions are false. WP:BLP1E is not relevant because there is no separate article about this event of which this is a spinoff. If, as suggested, we merge this content into a more general article about falls from great heights, we would retain this heading for its edit history and as a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The recent coverage you refer to isn't actually recent. If you look at the sources you will see that they are from the time of the incident. Maybe they come up with recent dates if they have been archived by the websites. Quantpole (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Notable people are a subset of newsworthy people but are not equivalent. This clearly falls into BLP1E - this person is known for nothing else. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Vesna Vulović gets notability for her amazing fall, but this guy isn't a world's record. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I still agree with my original assertion that this was WP:BLP1E. No evidence since has been presented that would suggest otherwise. Redfarmer (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One event. Survival does not count as a second event. And wehre one event occurs, there is no policy I can find which says the single event must have an article at all. Collect (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and further expand. WP:BLP1E states "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.". Without question, the event was significant, the individual's role within it was singular, the event was exceedingly well documented nationally and abroad, and it continues to have ramifications. The amazing survival of this man, despite what he experienced, not only makes the article noteworthy and encyclopedic, but its continued coverage in relation to other similar events and its use as a reference in articles unrelated to the man, show that the continued significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources of this man, the event, and his subsequent recovery, triggered coverage and its referencing in other safety issues, nationally AND internationally make it more than qualify for inclusion PER guideline: New York Times 1, New York Daily News, NYP, The Sun, NJ.Com 1, Workers Comp Insider, Daily Gotham, Gothamist 1, Daily Mail 1, Taipai Times, BBC News, Independent, UPI, Bloomberg, NYC.gov, National Ledger, The Ledger, Gothamist 2, KATU, London Evening Standard, New York Post 1, NJ.Com 2, Seattle Times, The Age, Indian Express, Sky News, The Guardian, ABC News, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail 2, New York Post 2, NJ.Com 3, The Times, Sunday Express, Slate, Newsweek, WCBS, The Doctor Weighs In, US Law, Brunei Times, The Star, Etc, etc, etc... there are hundreds of in-depth coverages of the event, its cause, its repercussions, its results, and its notable uniqueness echoing all over the world. This man, the event and its consequences leaps past the WP:GNG like a rocket. Time for just a little WP:COMMON SENSE folks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the fact that there are so many opinions that this topic is not sufficiently notable suggest that the common sense is different from yours. Bongomatic 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP1E Hipocrite (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting and succint. But I am confused. Can you possible expand your answer and show how you determined that WP:BLP1E's specifically allowing such articles through its stating "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources" does not apply? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not Hipocrite, but from my perspective the answer is that I do not believe the event was "significant" for the purposes of a long-term, global, general encyclopaedia - it has had no lasting impact on society, window cleaning, sky-scraper construction, safety legislation, etc.
- Also I would dispute that Mr Moreno's role in the event was "substantial" - the event (the falling window-cleaning platform) happened to him, and he played no part in its cause (I've seen nothing that suggests he caused it directly or indirectly), its progression (as far as I'm aware he was just a passenger and did not accelerate, slow, impede or facilitate its progress under gravity), or it's outcome (his actions did not, as far as I can see from the sources quoted, cause, avert, exacerbate or mitigate the injuries to himself or his brother, nor did his actions prevent anyone on the ground getting hurt, and they played no significant role in the damage or lack thereof to building, ground, platform or equipment). That he survived and his brother did not was that Alcides got lucky and landed on a pile of cables with his limbs under him while his brother did not. If this seems harsh, consider the analogy of two passengers in an airliner that crashes, that one of them survives and the other doesn't does not mean the survivor played a substantial role in the accident.
- The reason the event was newsworthy outside of the locality in which it happened (and I agree that it was) is that one person survived. Neither this though, nor any human-interest stories about his recovery, make a biography about Alcides Moreno encyclopaedic at this time. Iff he goes on to become a notable person for other reasons, related or unrelated to this accident then this article can be recreated as a paragraph in that biography. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a significant event. If it were a significant event, it would have an article created before I just made this comment. Since it doesn't, it's just trivia. Hipocrite (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting and succint. But I am confused. Can you possible expand your answer and show how you determined that WP:BLP1E's specifically allowing such articles through its stating "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources" does not apply? Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notable for one event. Coverage does not seem to be ongoing. Though there are extensive news stories, they are the typical sort of 'fluff' reports that end up getting picked up by lots of newspapers. Quantpole (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Thryduulf makes some good points above. Alcides Moreno was just along for the ride as the gondola fell. He in no way compares to John Hinckley, Jr. who was the driving force between the one event that makes him notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEEVENT without prejudice to the creation of an article about the event which is arguably notable. Bongomatic 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E - despite the story being covered "as far away as the UK"! ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I have seen some editors state that they lately look more at notability than human interest. In essence I agree, but are the two in certain cases not alike? Sure, Borat character landing on Eminem at mtv music awards is human interest not really notable (the hits on yahoo for that are astonishing) but is this the same? Is it notable to know someone survived a bullet in the head? It has happened. How about multiple black mamba bites? A fall from 500 feet? This is notable to me to a degree. I often watch the news to see what happens in real life that is potentially dangerous otherwise seemingly irrelevant. It makes one wiser. I for one do not look so much at the technical side of passing this WP or passing that WP, I think of this encyclopedia as "what will be noteworthy or interesting to the generations that follow..." and if I am the one taking a nasty fall maybe it is good to have in mind that 1% survive instead of certain doom. Forgive me this childishness, just a thought. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable that people have survived snake bites, falls from 500 ft, etc. but that in itself does not make the survivors themselves notable. Some of the rest of your comment sounds like you are confusing newsworthiness with encyclopaedic notability. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as wikipedia is not a news repository. The lack of any coverage beyond the initial incident is proof that this event has had no lasting impact and this person is not considered notable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not necessarily think that a few stories in reliable sources make someone notable if there wasn't something notable there to begin with, but the number of highly respectable sources for this is sufficient. . We seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, regardless of how non-notable the event of person or event may have been in any normal meaning of the term. The other , applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important. For everyone who quotes BLP above, do you realize you are saying that when he eventually dies of other causes he will become notable? If anyone thinks that actually makes sense, let them explain why. I think this article is the poster child for inconsistency of WP guidelines. DGG (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really agree with that. An article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Dean Farrar Street collapse) I did a small amount of work on was deleted as NOTNEWS despite having about 5 sources, 3 of which (I think) were well after the event had happened (and more were available from the time of the event), and there weren't really BLP concerns there. It just highlights the randomness of AfD really. (Bitter? Moi? ;-) ) I agree with your general point that the criteria are more stringent for BLP, and quite rightly so. Maybe the encyclopedia loses some good content, but it's probably better safe than sorry. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict) erm, please could you explain how the BLP guidelines mean that when Alcides Moreno dies of natural causes he will become notable? I have been involved in several notable events in a non-notable manner, and there are reliable sources for my involvement in several non-notable events. Neither these individually, nor collectively mean that I am notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, I also disagree. The formulation 2RS=N doesn't mean that everything mention in those 2RS gets a separate article. As noted below in my opinion, it seems possible to me that the event (multiply covered in reliable sources) is notable, subject to NOTNEWS (I don't have a view). That is not to say, however, that the person, as opposed to the event, merits independent coverage. Bongomatic 02:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the key point of my argument is that this is all a matter a judgment, and should have had a full 10 days discussion. DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What should have had a "full 10 days discussion"? This is article is undergoing a full discussion here at this page; and any issues you have with guidelines or policies should be taken up on the appropriate talk page or central discussion page where they will get noticed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was arguing against the possibility of peremptory delete via BLP policy, or snow, as has sometimes happened here. DGG (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What should have had a "full 10 days discussion"? This is article is undergoing a full discussion here at this page; and any issues you have with guidelines or policies should be taken up on the appropriate talk page or central discussion page where they will get noticed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the key point of my argument is that this is all a matter a judgment, and should have had a full 10 days discussion. DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This does seem borderline but is a whisper away from meeting notability. People like this often go on media tours and start a second career as a motivational speaker of sorts. If there is evidence of this story moving into the second act, as it were, then WP:Heymann keep. -- Banjeboi 23:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: No matter how many newspapers covered it, it's still a WP:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As others have stated I see this event as being remarkable enough to qualify for an exemption. But, even if it weren't, policy suggests covering the event, not the person. So, which article would this notable event be covered in? I suggest there isn't one. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then create an article on the event. There are adequate sources above. See WP:SEP (it is certainly not my problem as I am not convinced of the notability of the event per NOTNEWS). Bongomatic 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- would it satisfy you then if we changed the title? DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't satisfy me if the title were just changed, because this article as it is written at the time of this comment is about the person not the event (as should any article at this title). So any article about the event you want to write will need different content and a different title, so you might as well start a new article. You would have to demonstrate though that the event is notable enough for an article, and I've not seen any evidence that it is (that is not to say there is no evidence, I've not looked and have no interest in looking). Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- would it satisfy you then if we changed the title? DGG (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then create an article on the event. There are adequate sources above. See WP:SEP (it is certainly not my problem as I am not convinced of the notability of the event per NOTNEWS). Bongomatic 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and adjust title and contents into an article about the event which everyone seems to agree is notable based on the very substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I don't agree that the event is notable enough for an article, nor that the coverage was "substantial". The event was newsworthy, and it is easily verifiable in multiple reliable sources, but neither of these facts make it notable. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obvious case of WP:BLP1E, no matter how much of a short-term stir it raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A7) by ChrisO. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've userified the text of the article per this request, so this deletion should not be taken to prejudice the recreation of the article if it is made properly encyclopedic. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Celebriducks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced spam about a non-notable product MickMacNee (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources, no assertion of notability and uncontested COI. The creator of the article has mentioned having a conflict of interest ("I do know the owner of the company (darn nice guy, BTW)"); at worst they're an employee, at best they're promoting the company on behalf of its owner ("I explained to him that he could not post himself, due to perceived conflict of interest."). --McGeddon (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I know this page has been plagued with conflict of interest problems, but I can find multiple independent sources for 'celebriducks' - from a quick Google search, I've found links such as this link and this CNN report. However, the COI and the fact that this article appears to be simply spam really overrules this, so I'm going to go for a weak delete. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Doesn't assert notability, and those sources look iffy. Have they done one of Duck Edwing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- William Patrick McGovern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Promotional biography of a non-notable person MickMacNee (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a quick Google search throws up nothing at all on the subject, completely against WP:BIO's guideline that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thinly disguised resume page for a grad student; none of his activities are notable, it's all standard grad student fare. Hairhorn (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established despite pompous resume. Quantpole (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no clear claim for notability and no sourcing to indicate it either. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per all of the above. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Verifiability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion - happy to discuss that on my talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rilezu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Rilezu appears to be the name of a website selling animation cels. Janke | Talk 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 16:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At best, it is an unverifiable WP:DICDEF. There is no indication in the article that it is about a company nor does Google search turn up any such company with that name or that it is a brand name. --Farix (Talk) 16:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Googling for "Rilezu" I found plenty of places that sell these things, by that name. That is what they are called, and the fact that they exist, is quite notable for fans of anime. Finding out the Japanese name for them, will most certainly show a lot more results. Perhaps the Japanese wiki can also be checked for information, if anyone who speaks Japanese passes by this way, and decides to have a look. Dream Focus 10:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply existing does not make something notable. It is still nothing more then an unverifiable WP:DICDEF, which is a violation of WP:NOT. And any definition Wikipedia gives without being sourced to a reliable source will be original research. --Farix (Talk) 11:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is apparently the name of a product that is not covered in any reliable sources independent of the manufactuers of the product. Where are the reliable sources independent of the subject that might establish notability for this?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into cel. The topic of rilezu is already almost being covered in the "collector's item" section, after all. --Gwern (contribs) 18:34 2 June 2009 (GMT)
- BTW, should the nominator also vote? In that case, my vote is delete... but that should already be apparent! ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, yes, the nominator is always assumed to have argued for deletion unless they specify otherwise (like "procedure nomination, abstain") in the nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't appear to be a notable product. Second choice redirect to cel, third choice merge there. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 10:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Junior Eurovision Dance Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- JEDC 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles are a hoax. As the main Eurovision Dance Contest for 2009 has been postponed to 2010 because of a "serious lack of interest", it seemed unlikely that a Junior one would be running, and indeed it isn't; in any case this role is occupied by Eurovision Young Dancers. There are very few hits in Google for Junior Eurovision Dance Contest and none of them is a reliable source; there are no hits but this article for Concours Eurovision de la Danse Junior, or for the European Independence Broadcasting Union which is supposed to be organising it, or for European Independent Broadcasting Union. Nothing in Google News. The "EIBU" reference provided for the first article is a dead link was a dead-link; has since been altered to point to the EBU web-site, but the page pointed to is about the Junior Song Contest; the long list of references in the second one are mostly to a single Kazakh web-site, and are all about the Junior Eurovision Song Contest, not Dance. Delete both as deliberate hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article clearly is a hoax, the links provided do not prove it, though they lead to a reliable sites (the Kazakh site mentioned above is prime source in the internet regarding JESC and EDC), but are misused, as on a source pages there is nothing proving existence of this contest. AlexeyU (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tagged this article with the {{Contradiction}}.{{Contradiction-inline}}, {{Deadlink}} and {{Hoax}} tags. Each of them with its own reason. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax. Dang I got suckered in by that one. ukexpat (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding to this nomination the following article newly created by the same author. It may not be strictly according to process to add a new article at this stage, but I plead WP:IAR - this one is part of the same hoax and clearly stands or falls with the others. JohnCD (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Junior Eurovision Dance Contest 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete all per nom. I too have been unable to find any references to verify this contest's existence. Cunard (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seond one also. Debresser (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 10:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mexico–Ukraine relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
another random combination, most coverage is in football or multilateral context. Spanish search and English search noting this usual want to boost relations agreement. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Relationship not notable per Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_bilateral_relations_articles Habanero-tan (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No relaible sources adress these relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Twelve years in terms of international relations is not anywhere near enough time to make a relationship notable in world affairs. Unremarkable. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't the length of time is that relevant, some nations (especially if closely located) have a better chance of developing notable relations in a short period of time, this one though clearly fails. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources that discuss the topic of an encyclopedia article? Then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. overall consensus was delete, the few keeps' arguments did not go anywhere Nja247 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyprus–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
nominating a 2nd time, the first AfD seemed to be more no consensus not keep. and my own search shows a lack of coverage, most coverage is in multilateral context, [22] one maritime agreement does not cut it as a notable relationship and have to consider non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Relationship not notable per Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_bilateral_relations_articles Habanero-tan (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per first nomination, and multilateral or bilateral a source is a source. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- these articles are specifically about bilateral not multilateral relations, otherwise almost every nation is intraconnected through the UN or world trade organisation. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For these topics, it is the general notability guidelines--not whether the two countries have signed a maritime pact--that determines whether there should be stand-alone article for the subject. And by no stretch of the imagination do the sources cited in the article or its external links suggest that this topic enjoys "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yilloslime TC 05:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. --68.44.172.57 (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — 68.44.172.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete No reliable sources adress these non notable relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my suspicion that these articles are being created by people who don't understand the counterintuitive mathematical fact that there are tens of thousands of ways to pair the 250 or so countries of the world, and are on a futile mission unknowingly filling Wikipedia with non-notable "generated" articles. BTW google will do the permutation math for you http://www.google.com/search?q=250+choose+2 Habanero-tan (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 90% of these stubs were created by a now banned editor who didn't bother to search for evidence of notability. LibStar (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Their relations are significant. Especially Pakistan's attitude to North Cyprus issue. --Turkish Flame ☎ 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not seem to have received enough coverage in WP:RS sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of an encyclopedically notable relationship via non-trivial mentions of the relationship in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable trivia. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources other than primary ones (and one a propaganda organ at that) to indicate the notability of the topic as a whole. The article certainly hasn't improved any since the last AfD, either. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 10:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cossacks professional competition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Looks like this is a "clan" from a video game.
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability; unverified. Web search for sources complicated by large number of junk results. Marasmusine (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. overall keep, Basileias pulled up some reliable sources Nja247 10:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Texe Marrs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is mostly sourced to Marrs's website or radio program. Other sources include a google search, associated conspiracy websites, blogs, and other similarly dubious sources. WP:N and WP:V both require that the article contents be sourced to reliable 3rd party sources. As it currently stands, that does not hold, and as such the article does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. Rami R 06:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that being so, please tag it to say that it needs third party sources. Texe Marrs is quite well known for his conspiracy theories, even outside the religious right (I'm not religious, and not right wing, and I created the article!!!)--MacRusgail (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article can be improved. The "Google Search" while tacky can be re-worked. Marrs has authored a lot of material and is quite well know in the conspiracy area. It would be a shame to delete this. Basileias (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Texe Marrs is regularly referred to in books by American Christian fundamentalists, and KJV advocates. I think he is a notable figure on that landscape, just as Art Bell, Rush Limbaugh etc are, even though they're not that well known in Europe.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: It needs serious work on sources, but a lot of his books show up when I search Amazon and some of the sources would qualify as wp:rs. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Niteshift's comments. Sources need improving, but notable.-MacRusgail (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article currently stands, there is not a single reliable source in the article. If this individual is truly notable, there should be no problem introducing real sources. Rami R 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These may well be print sources. A serious flaw in Wikipedia is that we assume everything is online. Having researched something else recently, I can assure you this is not the case.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article currently stands, there is not a single reliable source in the article. If this individual is truly notable, there should be no problem introducing real sources. Rami R 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Niteshift's comments. Sources need improving, but notable.-MacRusgail (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick scan. The Witches' Voice, Alpha and Omega Ministries, Dr. James White, Catholic Answers and Karl Keating all seem like reliable sources. Basileias (talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just want to reiterate that unreliable sources can
reliably document the characteristics of a topic thought to cover the unreliable. Quotes from a delusional person who has become notable can be illustrative. This doesn't remove the requirement for some notice by reliable sources but citations only to unreliable sources may be an ok start if notability is likely. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I suggest if contributors' wish to merge the content then feel free to get doing that as soon as practicable. Once the merger is complete, then blank the page and put in its place a redirect to either Cholesterol or Statin once that is sorted. Nja247 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cholesterol Depletion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fork of cholesterol and statin (and duplicate with mevalonate inhibition) mainly intended to emphasise perceived side effects of statins. JFW | T@lk 06:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from article's creator and major contributor:
- Objection
- There has to be a serious objection to this move on the basis that cholesterol depletion is in the same category of importance and seriousness as the natural class of diseases called hypocholesterolemia but quite distinct in terms of etiology. This is about the artificially induced depletion of membrane cholesterol and its emerging clinical impact. This is a nascent topic and deletion would be premature given the papers accepted and undergoing final editorial preparation in a PUBMED indexed quarterly medical journal for publication this summer. You have not understood th significance of the references already in place. You might suggest a re-naming of the phenomenon e.g Medically induced hypocholesterolemia and tranfer the contents to the Hypocholesterolemia page but the separate etiology might be a problem?
- My particular objection would be withdrawn if there was a way of renaming or re-integrating this information into the hypocholesterolemia as a separate section on Medically-induced hypocholesterolemia category to allow the emerging multi-disciplinary literature on this phenomena to be properly cross-referenced for wikipedia users. The fields affected already include all areas of medicine (where lipid rafts, exocytosis and endocytosis are involved ) e.g. potentially all eukaryotic organs and organelles. We need to see a cross-referencing of this emerging phenomenon due to its multi-disciplinary consequences in all areas of medicine, cell biology and biochemistry. There is real growth in the range of areas impacted and the general nature of it means it can be a relative side-issue in a medical specialism (particularly cardiology) but serious in general practice. One spur to its increased volume of research has been the availability of squalene epoxidase inhibitors originally developed as a means of side-stepping some of the non-sterol side effects of statins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynwiki (talk • contribs) 01 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Inappropriate use of primary sources and original research. Eg. Uses results from tissue culture to say low chol causes increased diabetes --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This diabetes link is a key issue for those of us studying exocytosis in cell membranes - I will provide a fuller set of citations on this matter for your consideration, as I think there is a proven mechanism between secretory processes and insulin release now that Xia et al have been confirmed independently and the retrospective analyses of WOSCOPS, Jupiter and ENHANCE trials also suppports. Glynwiki (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - synthesis major issue. There may be some useful primary research material here for use in explaining single biological process, but overall makes wild leaps of inference. David Ruben Talk 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- please explain the "wild leap of inference" and it will be addressed - I am sure the latest edits will go some way to reassuring you of the validity of the review material and the citation of the supporting science. This unsigned message by Glynwiki (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a separate subject that can not be simply redirected to hypocholesterolemia, mevalonate inhibition or anything else. I do not see any WP:SYN problems. Author uses sources, as in any normal review, but he does not make conclusions of his own.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the Issues
[edit]Thanks to all the critics and the supporters of this topic. I hope you can see that both groups have made me improve and extend the objectivity and clarity of the topic. I hope you are able to see the multidisciplinary nature of the issues and revalue this page upwards. I would like someone to contribute an acknowledgement of the achievements of statins in cardiology and acute post-op uses. This is not going to become a statin bashing page but is important in rebalancing the objectivity of the wikipedia content on this subject.
We have a way to go but understanding the non-cardiological issues of terpenoid and steroid loss is a valid, large and important topic in biochemistry and may benefit the focus of statin usage in cardiology. In fact I would expect that good documentation of this topic would be a boon for all parties who see the medical potential in this page.
We may soon see a branch topic for squalene epoxidase inhibitors (squale-statins) below the pathway split for steroid and terpenoid creation. Glynwiki (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)80.189.7.125 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to cholesterol and/or statin as appropriate. Again, this is one of several inappropriate POV forks on the topic. There is no sense in trying to maintain multiple articles covering virtually the same ground. This is all the more so since these articles seem to be an effort to make an endrun around WP:WEIGHT and rewrite the content on statins from the minoritarian/fringe POV. MastCell Talk 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to statin. A side effect of taking too much of a kind of drug should be discussed in the article about the drug itself, ¿no? A good deal of the contents are dreadful, but some has adequate sources and could be salvaged by copyediting. What's salvageable belongs in the main article, not in a separate and largely ignored corner of Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Statin and/or Cholesterol as appropriate. A decent article could be written at some point about cholesterol depletion at some point (see, for example, Hartman 2005, PMID 15709489, or Guardia-Laguarta et al. 2009, PMID 19457132) but the current body of this article is really about other topics; it is telling that none of the cited sources mention depletion in their titles. Until we have decent content in this area, we should not confuse the reader into thinking that we do. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - page creator's revised POV I have been most impressed by the appeals to simplfy, and merge the best points on this page with statin and cholesterol topics. Paradigm shifts and othodoxy are very uneasy bed fellows and our review (In Press) as - Wainwright G., Mascitelli L.,MD, Goldstein M. R.,MD (2009). "Cholesterol-Lowering Therapies and Cell Membranes". Arch Med Sci. 5.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) . That makes it a little earlier to defend the independence of this page further. I would like to thank everyone for their time and guidance on this matter and look forward to the merged progression of the topics elsewhere. Glynwiki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Statin. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mevalonate inhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Content fork of content concerning statins; essentially WP:SYNTH. Effectively used as a vehicle to emphasise perceived side-effects of this group of medication. Delete or maximally merge the most relevant content into the main statin page. JFW | T@lk 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree this should be deleted. Lots of original research here. It juxtaposes true statements to create a false impression. If statins cause Alzheimers than provide research that says so. Do not say: "When normal phosphorylation is interfered with by mevalonate blockade, our cells increase the production of Tau protein. Tau is the protein substance of the Neurofibrillary tangles common to Alzheimers and other neurodegenerative diseases.[citation needed]Neurodegenerative diseases include:Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ( ALS ), Primary Lateral Sclerosis ( PLS ), Multiple Sclerosis ( MS ), Multiple System Atrophy ( MSA ), Frontotemporal dementia." What research we have shows a trend towards benefit PMID 15883262--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some important points, which will eventually be addressed but, in the interim, to avoid mis-interpretation I have removed the list subject to improved citations. Thanks for that point.Glynwiki (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the growing number of citations available in this field from peer reviewed science deletion would reflect very badlly on wikipedia - we can do better than that.
You make some good points but you should take a little time to reflect on the implications for lipidology, biochemistry and cell biology. The emerging position is based on Squalene epoxidase inhibitors science as well as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. It would be wrong to automatically dismiss laboratory science and evidence on the basis of medical statistics and opinion. We can repair the objections and engage in the data - we can do this section by section. Thanks for the guidance and I appreciate your adversarial points but we should reflect and explain the facts with citation support. Deletion would be an agressive over-response to this genuine issue and undermine the integrity and good name as much as allowing some serious errors to persist in this page so lets deal with it by citations and facts. Thanks for engaging with this topic. Glynwiki (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you familiar with WP:CRYSTAL? We don't usually write articles about "emerging positions" because encyclopedias are supposed to be collections of knowledge instead of speculation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks WhatamIdoing. I should clarify by using past tense 'emerged'for biosciences and present tense for clinical practice. This is one of those multi-disciplinary paradigm ripples that moves slowly through the sciences. There are powerful lobby groups involved when orthodoxy is under review - so extreme caution is very understandable on this topic and related topics. I hope science prevails.Glynwiki (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although it has some content overlap with statins, the effect of the drugs on a specific metabolic pathway is a justifiable separate sub-subject. No WP:SYN problems. One should debate improvement of the content rather than delete this article.Biophys (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my. That article is a mess. What we have there is not really usable. I believe that the general subject of inhibiting this pathway could be turned into a suitable and appropriately encyclopedic article. However, this isn't it. Based on what I read in the article, I'd guess that the primary author is passionate about the subject but doesn't actually know anything about it (beyond whatever s/he read on a few very biased websites). By the time you strip out the irrelevancies (who cares if somebody got a patent that mentions this? Who cares if the Life Extension Foundation started a petition?) and the sources are either fringe promoters of the idea that statins are (nearly) always bad, unsupported opinion pieces (PMID 12508285), or are misrepresented/primary sources, and the like, you're left with very little. I could support either a stub-and-replace keep -- being fully aware that it's going to be a major hassle to keep it from turning into a biased WP:FORK -- or merge and delete to preserve the little bit of useful, non-misrepresented, mainstream information by moving it to other articles (possibly each bit to each separate article on the relevant enzymes, with a brief pointer in an article like Statins). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the Issues
[edit]Thanks for the concerns and guidance. I have done a lot of work on talk pages and tried to be constructive positive and helpful. I feel that the original concerns have now been addressed. Doc James has been quite a tough critic and in some measure the improvements he has forced were very necessary and I thank him and invite him to continue his interest and constructive input.
The fact that this topic spans many discipline has been a challenge and my direct medical mentors have helped me address the issues raised in the early version. Please take on board the multi-disciplinary nature of this topic. Some medical specialisms can be too narrow in their remit. We should acknowledge the value of cardiology enthusiasm for this topic. There are concerns that this prevents a NPOV on statins. There are genuine balance issues in the overall wikipedia treatment of statins. Main issues to note here are possible blind spots in in the long-term non-cardiovascular issues. The trials could not could not fully address issues beyond the safety and efficacy and some were limited by use of surrogate end points and lack of total mortality transparency (e.g US Congress and ENHANCE in December 2008).
Retrospective analysis of clinical trial data has been very helpful on dealing with blind spots. I thank both supporters and critics and await developments. This topic has some way to go and I hope you now see the value.
Glynwiki (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to statin. Textbook POV fork. It's not worth the effort to maintain two articles in parallel that cover virtually the same material, especially since one of them seems to have been targeted to rewrite the material from a minority point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. MastCell Talk 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - page creator's revised POV I have been most impressed by the appeals to simplfy, and merge the best points on this page with statin and cholesterol topics. Paradigm shifts and othodoxy are very uneasy bed fellows and our review (In Press) as - Wainwright G., Mascitelli L.,MD, Goldstein M. R.,MD (2009). "Cholesterol-Lowering Therapies and Cell Membranes". Arch Med Sci. 5.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) . That makes it a little earlier to defend the independence of this page further. I would like to thank everyone for their time and guidance on this matter and look forward to the merged progression of the topics elsewhere. Glynwiki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 by Jimfbleak - non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neeti motor killahans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
CSD G3 was requested (not by me) and denied ("someone who understands Thai can let us know if it is salvageable"). The article and page name have no connection. The article is a prayer song, each line has four sections - lyrics in Punjabi, lyrics in Hindi, lyrics in English, meaning in English. I really don't know what to say about this, the creator has also created other similar pages with devotional songs. Strongly recommend deleting. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because the AfD reason/page creator are the same:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The page creator User:Neetisekhon, has also created similar POV pages, since deleted - Civic Culture - WP:CP, Sikhism and science - A1, G12, PROD (once each, not sure if all pages were created by the same person, but most recent one was), Killa hans - A1. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't know what this is, but it isn't an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a copyright violation pf http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=KeertanPage&K=974&L=9&id=41832 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreasJS (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Wrong process. The nominator was the same person who had tagged the article for proposed deletion, and nobody has contested that proposed deletion yet. If the proposed deletion is contested, the article can be taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion again at that time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blues Brothers 3: Return of the Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is only a fan-suggested movie. I only find one google site and it is not by Universal Pictures, but made by a fan who is suggesting a movie title and plot. Shanniz (talk) 05:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this could have waited until the PROD was contested? Nosleep break my slumber 07:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FlexTraining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable company. Lacks 3rd party sources. The only Google hits I'm finding are to the company itself or to the unrelated training offered by Adobe for it's products. The only Google news hits I'm finding are to press releases put out by this company. RadioFan (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty notable. Kiwikibble (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable enough for inclusion. Most Google results seem to reference the Adobe Flex (training) product rather than this company, and so the amount of results for FlexTraining can be deceiving. WAT (talk • contributions) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally promotional. No news sources mention it. A handful of e-learning books mention it,[23][24][25][26] but none actually discuss it. Fences and windows (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources. Rami R 07:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. delete, the one merge suggestion didn't go anywhere Nja247 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 19th Studio Album (Rush) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:CRYSTAL - no reliable sources speak about this album as of yet Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:BALL talks about events, but that guideline can be applied to albums as well... speculation about it must be well documented, which I think is album-related too. So far my Google searching only turns up one link ([27]), and I think this does not constitute 'well documented'. Additionally, you could also take a look at WP:HAMMER, about un-named albums. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Above result refers to Rush's 18th album, Snakes & Arrows, not to the possible 19th. ThuranX (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with a crystal hammer. Also, per Rush discography, they already have 19 studio albums; any new one would be a 20th. Only reference is an interview with Alex Lifeson, and he can talk about what they plan to do, but he certainly can't guarantee that an album will be released. Nosleep break my slumber 07:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An album that might be recorded at some point in the future shouldn't have an article here.--Michig (talk) 07:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. Wikipedia is not a fan rumour site. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to the band's page- For the record, there is a cited source on the band's page that shows that they ARE planning on going back into the studio sometime this fall (I think). But since they haven't even gone into the studio yet, there's no need for an article. Oh, and as a fan, I'd like to slap the writer of the article for so badly jumping the gun. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, and once again I will never understand why the slobbering fanboys are in such a big freaking hurry to get out an album article the nanonsecond they hear the first rumor about the next album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the editor who nom'd it as A7, which needs serious adjsutment to allow albums and other future nonsense. 10lbHammer - Wikipedia is a race, of course. ThuranX (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I had a hammer → I'd hammer in the morning → I'd hammer in the evening → All over this land → I'd hammer out DANGER! → I'd hammer out a warning → I'd hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters → Aaaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllll over this land!!!! MuZemike 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, that is. MuZemike 23:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, If not even Rush themselves know anything definite about this album, how on Earth can we have a Wikipedia article about it. Astronaut (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled My Chemical Romance Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Needs to be a speedy category for these. No details given, it's not notable. Not a good re-direct because it's not going to be a search term. StarM 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – WP:HAMMER is actually the direct policy this article violates. American Eagle (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:hammer isn't actually policy though riffic (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, my bad. Policy/guideline/essay, I was meaning in general – it fails WP:HAMMER. :) American Eagle (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: What's the point of putting an album on wikipedia that you know nothing about? I would wait at least until they release all the song titles. Shanniz (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough is known yet for an article, and it hasn't even been recorded.--Michig (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. When will they learn that if all you can say is "hasent been given much detail", it is too soon for an article. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammer – most of the titles of the songs even say "untitled." (However, there are a few exceptions, as The Smashing Pumpkins had a song titled Untitled.) MuZemike 23:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Places of worship in Framingham, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A directory of churches in a Massachusetts town — standard for inclusion appears to be simply existence as a religious group in the town. One church in the town is notable as a NRHP-listed site, but no evidence to show that any of the others is, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- It might have been appropriate to merge something, if the article was more than a link farm, but it has no substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reasons and rebuttals:
- It is not a "link farm"
, it is a list no different than any other list on WP; This was a split from the main Framingham, Massachusetts article, There were links in the original article that I did not delete when I split it off. I have removed those and all subsequent additions. It is now a strait list. - It is not a directory as it does no contain addresses, phone numbers and other such stuff that you would find in a directory;
- How are Places of worship in Hong Kong, Places of worship in Bangalore, Places of worship in Kumanovo, and Places of worship in Kumanovo acceptable articles when this is not? Is there a standard? These other articles are almost identical in structure and format. Give me some time and I will try to get it a little better with some sources. Many of these places do have a history and are important in one way or another.
- It is not a "link farm"
- --Jeremy (blah blah) 01:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't have to be a Yellow Pages entry to be a directory for these purposes — it's an indiscriminate list, and thus fails our standards. As for the other lists, consider the point of this essay — their existence isn't reason to keep this one, and it may be reason to get rid of one or more of them. The first two are perhaps different; they include a list of notable churches, especially the Hong Kong list that has plenty of listed buildings that are likely as notable as National Register sites are in the USA. Nyttend (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read what I said, I just commented that you are not adhering to any standard - you're just jumping around willy-nilly. I know all about the other stuff exists essay, my point is that you did not go after the other articles until I pointed them out. If you are going to do stuff, follow a the guidelines and do it right for all of them or none of them. Furthermore what makes it indiscriminate? Please provide a guideline that you are following that shows it to be indiscriminate. The definition of indiscriminate is failing to make or recognize distinctions It shows distinct faiths and denominations in the town, so in that aspect it isn't indiscriminate. If, as I requested, you gave me time so I could find sources that conforms to WP:Note, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS that would make it not-indiscriminate I will take care of this making the article conform to the first guideline in WP:NOTADIRECTORY, making this a Merged group of small articles. --Jeremy (blah blah) 06:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but trim down, a lot. Framingham is a prominent college town and exurban community west of Boston, MA. Many of the church are notable, and the article is part of a series. It can be rescued. Disclosure: I once resided in this town. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. The article can probably be developed to something along the lines of List of churches in Philadelphia or even List of churches in Greater Manchester. An alternative is to rework the article along the lines of Christianity in Omaha, Nebraska to discuss the history of religious worship in the town. --Polaron | Talk 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If there are plenty of notable churches, this idea won't find any disagreement from me, but aside from the NRHP-listed First Baptist, which of these churches are notable? Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The individual items in a list do not need to be themselves notable. Notability only refers to whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. If the list entry is not notable, the simple soultion would be to not link it. Also see this and this for precedent and other arguments for keeping these kinds of lists. --Polaron | Talk 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question was primarily directed at Bearian, who changed the intro to "This is an article on the notable Places of Worship...". Wasn't paying attention; I should have placed the comment up a little higher. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but rename "List of ..." to clearly indicate it is a list, not an article. Individual items don't have to be notable to appear on a list and the overall concept of "places of worship in XXX" is likely notable in most cases, including this one. (Only a weak keep since very few of the items are independently notable). List could be improved by adding some basic info about each church such as the year in was founded, its approximate congregation size, and it official webpage (if there is one). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. No salvagable content, and if it is a copyvio, it needs to be deleted quickly. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nilutpalgogoivilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not sure what the title has to do with the subject, but this text is obviously copied from somewhere else. It's also not written in an encyclopedic manner. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Retitle article "Arun Sarma" and add references and cats. It is about a famous Assamese dramatist.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a newspaper interview, with a title derived from the interviewer's name, and an introduction that says outright, in as many words, that it's a firsthand interview. Did you not read the first paragraph of the article? Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, nor a free wiki hosting service. (The creator of this article put another interview, since blanked, on the article's talk page, and appears to be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is a free publication service for such things.) Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be scope for an article on Arun Sarma, but this content is not the start of it. There's no redeemable content here, because this content is an interview, complete with unsourced analysis by the person performing the interview (Nilutpal (talk · contribs) — the "Nilutpal Gogoi" given as a byline in the interview), whose style is simply completely wrong for an encyclopaedia ("one thing is for sure", "fag end of the last millennium", "The best part of this dramatist", "memorable", and more). Nilutpal Gogoi, you have come to the wrong place. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It's not a venue for getting onesself and one's firsthand research into print. It is not a free wiki hosting service. Please get your magazine/newspaper article interviews published in the proper outlets for such things. Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speedy - obvious copyvio from something. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since it is currently impossible to decipher what the subject of the article is, especially since it contains no sources. If Nilutpal (talk · contribs) can clarify that and produce relevant sources, then we can re-evaluate and recreate/rewrite the article. Abecedare (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't even understand it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure it's a copyvio, but it does seem to be badly translated. Googling long sentences comes up with no hits, but googling short statistically improbable phrases like "adjudged the best" and "fag end of the last millennium" turns up mostly sites in India. Perhaps this article just needs to be re-written better. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - something quicker than speedy! Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close, vote stacking by blocked user. BJTalk 09:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My Face Can't Be Felt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mixtape that is not official and is likely to be compiled of older songs from a non-notable DJ. No significant coverage, awards, or charts Soprano90 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS (sorry, i don't know if i am supposed to vote or if nominating the article counts as my vote, i am not too familiar with deleting articles) Soprano90 (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to this article? Who thought it was a great idea to replace a sourced upcoming album with a mixtape? (An unofficial mixtape if that.) SE KinG. User page. Talk. 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shoot i don't even know... a few days i came to add some new juelz and wayne songs to "I Can't Feel My Face" and i got redirected to a mixtape that's not even official... If there's anything to get back the original article i'm sure tons of people would appreciate it. Soprano90 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Nja247 10:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sky News schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia as not an electronic program guide. ZoeL (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Deor (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. already speedied by Edison. StarM 02:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessie James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sad indeed, but a classic WP:BLP1E article which is unlikely to grow into anything more substantial or encyclopedic; this boy is only notable for his death which does not confer notability within our terms. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Rodhullandemu 00:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have to agree, while sad, wikipedia is not a memorial and being murdered does not make him notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. That's really all you can say about it. It's a memorial for a woefully non-notable murder victim. Wikipedia isn't the local newspaper. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Speedily deleted under CSD:G4 as substantial recreation of article previously deleted by AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessie James (murder victim) Edison (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Janko.at (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested WP:PROD. No sources are cited, getting a "website of the week" award does not confer notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- even if the website that gave Janko.at the award has had more than 25 million visitors Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any references, Alexa ranking about 158K. Also, it could be G12, the puzzles section is an exact copy of Janko.at - Puzzles, but that isn't saying much, since it's just a listing of all the games available. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- only so far! I'm not done yet. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Janko.at has recieved other honors besides "Website of the Week", I just have a hard time understanding/translating them because I know very little German. Since 17 October 1999, Janko.at has had 1,768,792 visitors. Almost every month since the beginning of 2008, Janko.at's creators have added at least 100, but usually about 200 new puzzles of various types. That's not including photos, recipes, freeware and adventure game walkthroughs. It is an AMAZING site for puzzle fans. It's a hidden treasure trove that I just want to get the word out about.
- Comment Would you please have a reliable source for the number of 1,768,792 visitors that you cite ? SyG (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please just give me a few day of working on the article before you propose it for deletion. I only just started on it. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFD period is seven days from the time of nomination, so you've got some time, but it's really going to need some reliable sources if it's to be kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) The majority of deletion discussions run for seven days, so you will have at least that much time to find and add reliable, published sources to the article to demonstrate that this website passes the General Notability Guideline for inclusion, and/or the inclusion guideline for web-based content. -- saberwyn 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- saberwyn 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources as to notability show up. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are zero sources. The article reads like a press release and the site is not even in English. meshach (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: virtually no prominence at all. Alexius08 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons above. Greg Tyler (t • c) 12:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at this time. I've known about janko.at for quite a while. I find it to be a great site. It, however, doesn't yet pass notability requirements to have an article here. The only links provided as sources do nothing to show any sort of notability, and I compared the site traffic reports at Alexa.com (not ultra-dependable, but OK for a rough idea) and compared it to a site that just barely was notable here for an article and the traffic was about 1/3 of it, which seem to suggest that it's not that we are missing sources covering it but that the world at large hasn't recognized it. DreamGuy (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The site is noting special, it clearly fails the Notability test. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if it is notable because of the incredible amount of puzzles it has?
I checked alexa.com and janko.at gets more traffic than nikoli. In fact, every possible option says that Janko.at is more popular than Nikoli.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/janko.at+www.nikoli.co.jp%2Fen+www.nikoli.com
Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt No reliable sources for this non-notable website. Hipocrite (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The symbol " ₪ " will act as a link to Alexa's page on that particular website.
Why Janko.at is better than Nikoli:
Judging Parameters ₪ | |||
---|---|---|---|
Traffic Rank | 159,049 | 484,013 | 620,138 |
Speed | 0.681 sec (10% of sites are faster) |
3.751 sec (72% of sites are faster) |
0.526 sec (6% of sites are faster) |
Sites Linking In | 251 | 40 | 211 |
3 Month Avg pageviews/user | 5.2 | 4 | 2.5 |
Janko.at has more puzzles than both Nikoli's combined (even if the two sites have completely different puzzles) and they are all free.
The only real difference between Janko.at and Nikoli is that one is a "personal" page and one a "professional" page. Being the official page of a company is the only thing Nikoli has over Janko.at.
Janko.at is more popular, faster, and has more puzzles. Both sites are equally informative with their puzzles, having rules, explanations, and guides for each type, but Janko.at has exponentially more puzzle types and more puzzles for each type, and does not try to sell you anything.
If you halved the amount of traffic Janko.at recieved, it would still be more than what Nikoli gets because you can only play the same 10 example puzzles so many times.
I'm not even sure that Nikoli.co.jp has any puzzles and if it does they aren't easy to find
My point is, if Janko.at is not notable and worthy enough to meet Wiki's standards, than neither is Nikoli. Since Nikoli is a crappy free puzzle site, if it wasn't an official site of a company then it would not meet Wiki standards, but Janko.at, which excels Nikoli in every way is Wiki worthy.
P.S. to Dreamguy
Nikoli owns most of the puzzles it publishes but I seriously doubt that they actually created most of them "in the first place". Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias are FULL of things that I, not only never heard of, but never even DREAMED could exist. So how can Wikipedians reject something just because it is relatively unknown. It would be unexcuseably egotistical to say that because something is not commonly known it is unimportant.
It can not be denied that with Janko.at containing so many different puzzle types (many of which are VERY popular), and with me putting those puzzle names on the Janko.at’s Wikipedia page, a lot of traffic will be directed to Janko.at’s Wiki page and from there will be directed to Janko.at itself, which WILL make it notable by anyone's standards.
PROOF: A few days ago when I first began my Janko.at article, the "site access counter" said 1,768,792. This morning that same counter said 1,769,748, a traffic increase of nearly 1000. As I write this the counter says 1,769,985, more than 200 more visitors. I don't believe that all the traffic was because of me, but it is a coincidence that supports my claim. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Those statistics are compelling for choosing which website to advertise on but not if this website is notable. -- Banjeboi 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite. Whilst Janko.at may very well get more traffic than other sites, I fail to see how this proves anything in relation to Wikipedia. I assume you're basically claiming other stuff exists? Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the basis of that claim was "other stuff exists" but that point's main message was that Janko.at is better than that "other stuff (that) exists", therefore it should be allowed to remain.Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Deliberate comparison to far less popular sites doesn't make this one notable. Alexius08 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." I think it's borderline acceptable, but it's unique. I say, "Let it stay." It'll help people find popular and obscure puzzles, authentic German recipes, and words and phrases for that rare dialect (Wienerisch?) that they're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.65.49 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But is it Wikipedia's job to help people find popular puzzles and German recipes? No. Greg Tyler (t • c) 09:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To find puzzles... probably not, but to find recipes... well, Wiki does have a cookbook. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean at Wikibooks? Well, feel free to add recipes there, rather than in this separate project. Greg Tyler (t • c) 21:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To find puzzles... probably not, but to find recipes... well, Wiki does have a cookbook. Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability established through multiple non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everything above me. Obviously non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Sovereign_state#The_historical_development_of_the_state. Nja247 10:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Origins of the State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod removed. WP:OR Text was copied here from two other Wikipedia articles. The main problem here is the title of the page "Orgins of the State" - read origins of mankind. All the info is available elsewhere on Wikipedia and an article on the "origins of everything" is not going to produce encyclopedic results. Passportguy (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sovereign_state#The_historical_development_of_the_state - Seems to be a fork or dupe of the topic of said target. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Cybercobra, or delete per WP:OR. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to [[28]]. The consensus of this discussion was to merge/redirect, and the most commonly cited target is listed here. If the regular editors of the pages decide on a preferable target, that too is fine. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicolette DuClare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While the Deus Ex series has had a great impact on gaming, this character's stand alone article fails notabiliy. Best case for it seems to either be to merge it into the character list or simply delete it. Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of similar reasons:
- Paul Denton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Chad Dumier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not getting you; are you explicitly for deleting these or just divided between deletion and merging? If it's the latter, then this should really be discussed elsewhere first. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly deletion, they're primarily plot summaries.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - They contain only plot information. Plot information should be summarized in a short section in the relevant game articles. These are plausable search terms, however. Marasmusine (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rd to Deus Ex: Invisible War; insufficiently notable, no need for break-out. JJL (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge No reason to obliterate okay content. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Deus Ex: Invisible War characters#Her Holiness. — Rankiri (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, merge Paul Denton into Major Deus Ex characters#Paul_Denton and Chad Dumier into Deus Ex: Invisible War characters#Chad Dumier. All three pages seem to fail WP:FICT's standalone article notability guidelines. — Rankiri (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above; primarily plot information. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. this didn't need to be re-listed. The "hold" was requested six days ago and there's still no evidence of valid sourcing. When/if they're found, the article can be re-created. Am happy to userfy if someone would like it. StarM 02:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- L & T South City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources to establish notability and provide verifiability. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Barring some sort of unusual event or history that provides notability, I don't think that a generic housing complex meets the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The fact that this article sounds spammy and has no third-party sources doesn't help either. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: promotional language for an unnoteworthy building. Alexius08 (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite being "set amidst 34 acres of luxuriant grandeur", I see no evidence of significant in-depth coverage in reliable (independent) sources. Drawn Some (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold - I've removed promotional language. I'm trying to get/add more independent sources. Vipinhari (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find sources, I can find a mention of this place in passing, establishing no more than that it exists: [29], and then some ad listings for places for sale there. This is nowhere near notability, in my opinion. The only way I can imagine this being salvaged is if non-english-language sources arise, but I couldn't help with that. Cazort (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a housing complex with nothing notable about it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. 3 deletes (including nomination) and one keep that doesn't have a particularly convincing argument). Nja247 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meraloma Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously deleted via AfD, this is an amateur sporting club that still doesn't show notability. Requests to add reliable sources to show notability have been removed from the page a number of times. The current links are almost entirely to the organisations own webpages, but the two that might be independent seem to consist of what looks like a university essay (currently link 2) and a broken link regarding a claimed record held by a member of the club (currently link 17). I've had a quick look for sources myself but haven't found anything that I would consider to satisfy our guidlines. Camw (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have read about the Meraloma club in books about Canadian football, and for several decades, they competed in the playoffs for the Grey Cup, before it was limited to the teams that are now in the CFL. The list in one of the links [30] shows that a large number of future CFL players played for this club before going pro, so it's fairly significant as amateur teams go. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I checked several of its links, and they do not indicate notability. If a secondary source said that methods used at the club produced a significantly above-average performance (the alleged members who became professional), then an article would be warranted. At the moment, it's just like any of the zillions of large sporting clubs around the world. Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent sources are provided. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Jamie☆S93 23:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Renzenberger, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a biased single issue article on the company. Either needs to be revamped to an NPOV article or deleted. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no bias in that article. The only thing that can be construed as bias, is mentioning the lawsuit, which is a fact, so there's nothing bias about it. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I guess the references I provided are not good enough...and the company doesn't really exist?? Maybe Renzenberger is disrespectful to the goD of monkey nuts...who knows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacosunday (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article needs improvement, but no reason for deleting. Greenman (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm not seeing the bias either, not in the current article or the brief revision history. The author of the article has made a moderate number of contributions on a variety of topics, going back several months, and spot-checking them they seemed to be valuable contributions (some involve replacing blog "sources" with more reputable ones), and I see no evidence of spam activity or conflicts of interest. Also, a google news archive search turned up, with minimal effort, additional sources that could be used: [31]. Personally, I find articles on this sort of topic very interesting, and I think they enrich wikipedia, whether they're left as stubs or expanded into full articles. If you object to coverage of certain material in this article, why not pull up some of the sources and write what you would think to be a more balanced article? Cazort (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, non-consumer business. Referenced to minor business journal of limited circulation, looks like an internally generated puff piece; to its own site, and to the self-published site of a law firm that sued them. Google News brings forth mostly reports of lawsuits they were involved in, or accidents involving employees. Not convinced that any of this makes a case for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a non-consumer business makes anything any less useful or important to include in wikipedia. In particular, I tend to think non-consumer businesses are more important because they tend to advertise less in places that the average person sees, and they tend to be off the radar of most media coverage. I also think this needs to be taken into account in notability discussions. This certainly isn't a high-profile company but there are enough reliable sources to create a small, tightly-sourced article (some of the sources, however brief, do describe what the company does, which is the core of it). I don't see what would be lost by keeping this page as part of wikipedia and therefore I can't stand by deleting it. Cazort (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "notability" is something of a term of art on Wikipedia. I still think it bears some relationship to the ordinary meaning the word carries in English: that a fair number of people have heard of something. This is why I suspect that consumer businesses that deal with the general public are going to find it easier to pass muster than non-consumer businesses do, in terms of verifiable information about them being found in edited sources. Here, all the sources seem to be either internally generated puff pieces, or attack pieces relating to lawsuits. All of this material is essentially self-published by people who hope to gain from circulating it. None of it seems to be reliable.
This business seems to relate almost exclusively to Union Pacific Railroad. Perhaps it might be worth a couple sentences there. But making an article out of the unreliable sources I was able to find is going to also involve walking a neutrality tightrope as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this is just a difference of philosophy but I don't think "how many people have heard of something" has any business factoring into a notability discussion. Plenty of minor streets in major cities are more heard of than, say, a Bol loop. What I think is more interesting is--are there enough sources for encyclopedic content? And I already see a paragraph that is well-sourced. Are all the sources I found "attack pieces relating to lawsuits"? No. i.e. [32], [33]. Yes, some of the material I found is essentially press releases relating to the lawsuits. But there's enough here to expand the page somewhat--and it's already encyclopedic, verifiable, and (as I see it) NPOV as it is. These are the LAST pages we should be arguing to delete, regardless of how big or small they are. Cazort (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "notability" is something of a term of art on Wikipedia. I still think it bears some relationship to the ordinary meaning the word carries in English: that a fair number of people have heard of something. This is why I suspect that consumer businesses that deal with the general public are going to find it easier to pass muster than non-consumer businesses do, in terms of verifiable information about them being found in edited sources. Here, all the sources seem to be either internally generated puff pieces, or attack pieces relating to lawsuits. All of this material is essentially self-published by people who hope to gain from circulating it. None of it seems to be reliable.
- Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient magterial to show they are a leading company in their particular niche. DGG (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by ChrisO, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- JetPack Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources to establish notability]]. I only found a few name drops after a google search, nothing actually about them. Wizardman 23:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – No apparent claim of notability. American Eagle (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claim of notability, could probably have been speedied. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The War Tapes. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Zack Bazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A soldier notable only for the fact that he appeared in The War Tapes documentary three years ago. Marginally notable individual, whom it would appear does not want/is unhappy with certain aspects of his WP bio. Delete per WP:BLP1E/'do no harm'. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The War Tapes as he is not notable outside of this context and it is a one line unreferenced BLP. Drawn Some (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rd as above. JJL (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In support of above reasoning--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OKR FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominated for speedy. I'm unaware of any precedent consensus on the notability of radio stations. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 13:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. According to the common outcomes and Wikipedia:Notability (media), radio stations are generally considered notable "if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. According to this, some of the station's programming is original, and it clearly broadcasts over the air. On the other hand, I am unable to find reliable sources demonstrating much more than the existence of the station and the frequency on which it broadcasts.
- Keep. Deleting radio station stubs would start an unprecedented avalanche. The proposal at Wikipedia:Notability (media) has not been accepted yet. There is talk going on about it, so this article should be kept pending a consensus there first. ZabMilenko 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it's actually existent and non-Ham, I see no reason to delete. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per standard notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cornell University Esbaran Amazon Field Laboratory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tagged for questionable notability since July 07, unreferenced, and could probably be merged into the main Cornell article if so desired. Wizardman 23:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect
to Cornell University#Research. This is an unusual research programme. There is some coverage [34][35][36] but not sufficient to stand up its own page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a better merge target. TerriersFan (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and rd as above. JJL (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MergeIt's a shame I can't find any more useful sources on this, as it is a fascinating topic and I would love to read more about it. But I can't find enough to justify it as a separate article. Cazort (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Merge Not notable enough on its own to merit its own article. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gbook hit, there are also lots of hits on local Peruvian sites (mostly tourism related), the problem with facilities like this is that most publications will come out in the name of the University or the major research department and not the field unit. This one is remarkable because it supports multiple departments. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After reading over the main page for Cornell, I think this article would make that page (which in my opinion is already way too long) too long. I am thus changing my recommendation to a Keep on the grounds that, notable or not, keeping it as a sub-page would make that page more readable. If someone wants to convince me to change my recommendation to a merge, I would recommend greatly reducing the size of the Cornell article, or finding a sub-page to merge to. Cazort (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how about redirecting it to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, which appears to house it via the Plant Bio. dept., or to its director Eloy Rodriguez? JJL (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a Merge/Redirect to Cornell University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences would be great. Thanks for the suggestion. Cazort (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redir to the above is in order. RedSkunktalk 06:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for 12 days with no arguments for deletion except from the nominator (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Anthony Bertozzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable racer; seems to verge on an ad for his businesses and his family. Orange Mike | Talk 22:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: Professional drag racer. Holds more IHRA world championships than anyone else [37]. Looks like textbook notability to me. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. I'm rather surprised that the nominator, as an adminstrator, didn't follow the instructions that say "when nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist". A simple Google News archive search would have shown that such sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree, the sources are pretty overwhelming in establishing notability--although they require searching without the middle name to find so I am hesitant to chastise the nominator! Cazort (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No reliable sources and too soon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian hastings (24) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
non-notable minor character; the amount of crystal ballery involved means that even sticking him at "minor 24 characters" or whatever isn't something viable. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete forthcoming character, not even known who the actor will be, cannot possibly be notable yet. DGG (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and probably too minor to merit own article. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – If it were a minor character in a previous season, then perhaps a redirect to character list. But this is for a future season (crystal ball). American Eagle (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A word to the wise; never source your article based on a torrent tracking site piece. Most epic and failing source I've come upon in my four years here. Wait until December when Fox actually begins to put out details. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL. A torrent as a citation? Now I've seen everything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.