Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Viscardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Yes, I am nominating this article again. Subject of this article DOES NOT meet notability criteria! His accomplishments are not of unique import, as thousands of students every year win the exact same or similar scholarships and prizes, and thousands of students also attend and graduate from Harvard. Mere intelligence is not grounds for a Wikipedia article.
Basic criteria for biographies are as follows:
- The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
I do not see how this person meets these criteria -- it is worth noting that USA Today chooses a person of the week EVERY SINGLE WEEK, Siemens chooses grand prize winners EVERY YEAR (and furthermore, it is not a Nobel, a Pulitzer, an Oscar, or any such award -- I do not find any other Siemens Competition winners with their own Wikipedia articles), and Harvard University accepts approximately 1600 new freshman every year, as well. What basically qualifies as a personal resume, a presentation written for the Siemens Competition, and mention in the Harvard Gazette for winning a fellowship also do not qualify as acceptable sources. AND all of the articles above refer to winners of the Siemens prize, not to the subject alone.
Another point I want to make is that having an Erdős number of 3 is irrelevant when the one with the number has virtually no other notable accomplishments. Most of the others I've checked on the list have far more achievements.Cami Solomon (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, there are a lot of undergraduate students at Harvard. But on the other hand, only a handfull of them has proved a mathematical conjecture and published the results. Some of those who did have an article on Wikipedia, see Daniel Kane or Reid W. Barton. Therefore keep. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the comparison you are making, but it's not entirely relevant to the discussion at hand. I might disagree that either of those fellows are worthy of their own Wikipedia pages as well, but that's neither here nor there because I didn't nominate them. I nominated this one, and it stands alone. It needs to be judged based on whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards, not based on whether or not other people can get away with similarly trite articles. And while not many students may have proved a mathematical conjecture, many of them are quite accomplished and have been lauded, awarded, published, etc. These are still not significant contributions. Delete.98.220.139.127 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Cami Solomon (talk) 05:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion they are. Just like a College All-American in football or basketball is notable, while other college football and basketball players might not. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Previous AFD by same nominator closed 2 weeks ago with niminator being the only person to !vote for deletion. Ample sourcing was shown and there is no reason to believe consensus has changed in 2 weeks. Edward321 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With coverage in two national and one significant local news sources, I think he meets notability. Am I incorrect in my understanding that the basic criteria for Basic criteria is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."? It seems to me he meets that level, and possible also notability for academicians. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment without voting one way or the other: If this is the second AfD nomination, shouldn't the first one be referenced here? Also, question for the nominator: do you have additional grounds for nominating it this time, compared to your previous nomination? Or is it that you simply refuse to accept the "keep" consensus of the previous nomination, because you don't agree with it? --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was two years ago, not two weeks ago. I nominated it again because I noticed that the list of sources had changed (I sometimes check on articles to which I've contributed). I did not delete the previous AfD nomination -- someone else did. Also, I don't know to what national and local news sources you are referring, but the articles mentioned in the previous AfD were not about Michael Viscardi; they were about the winners of the Siemens Prize, which receives the same amount of coverage every year (and they aren't even in the main article anymore). (EDIT: I see now that the sources have been modified -- I don't remember what was there 2 years ago, but these are probably some of the same, though I wouldn't call them "ample". These sources were never quite sufficient; this is like saying that every winner of a prestigious scholarship whose name has appeared in a news source should have his or her own page. Having graduated from Harvard myself, I can't help but note that Viscardi's accomplishments are relatively commonplace in that environment, and that is why I find the article superfluous. I think it helps set a negative precedent of clutter and minutiae for Wikipedia.) Furthermore, a college All-American is the best in his position in the entire country as judged by the NCAA. I think that's a big difference. Cami Solomon (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colin Rivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Not notable and dubious. Has been tagged since Dec 2008 looking for sources. No sources can be found. Searched Google Books and even Amazon.com. This article could be a hoax. --HighKing (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom Fmph (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per High King - 2 people? Neither notable if so. Or hoax? Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lots of material available on internet about this person (most of it is in Spanish). Proposer has tragetted article simply because it contains the words British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been warned several times before on making personal comments. Your Talk page is a testament to your blatant disregard to civility and other editors, and our collective patience is all but gone. If you continue in this vein, you can expect to find yourself at (yet another) ANI, and this time you will in all likelyhood receive a permanent block. You have been warned. --HighKing (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is clearly not a hoax,[1] so let's get this on track as a discussion about notability, rather than editor behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention there of the career in "Linguistic Archaeology Work"! Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it does show that the whole article can't be considered a hoax. Again, let's concentrate on notability rather than claims from one side of hoaxing or from the other side about this nomination being related to the use of a particular name for a group of islands in north-western Europe. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No mention there of the career in "Linguistic Archaeology Work"! Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a hoax, and most of the article is pure fiction. The cited book with ISBN 978-0-306-40615-7 doesn't exist, for example, and that ISBN actually refers to something else. In fact, his name doesn't appear in Google Books at all. Fails WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whether or nor it is a hoax it does not have enough sources for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Not enough? It has exactly one, which says "Dalinda is featured in ... Colin Rivas's track 'Ay Dalai'" and links to an mp3 file. So yes, there is a musician called Colin Rivas, but it's impossible to disentangle the factual and fictional parts of the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I think we're in agreement. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We are indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I think we're in agreement. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Not enough? It has exactly one, which says "Dalinda is featured in ... Colin Rivas's track 'Ay Dalai'" and links to an mp3 file. So yes, there is a musician called Colin Rivas, but it's impossible to disentangle the factual and fictional parts of the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G3 as blatant hoax, also A9 as artist's page was deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dope Boy Resurrection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find any reference for "Dope Boy Resurrection" in GHits or GNEWS. Perhaps a hoax. ttonyb (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax or not, "debut album to be released on UTP Records"". A vanity label. Does not meet music or general notaility guidelines. The artist is Milly (rapper) does not meet music or GNG either. Unable to locate WP:V on subject. Nothing helpful at Allmusic. Dlohcierekim 23:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax from blocked sockpuppeteer. continuation of hoaxing around UTP Records. [2], Yung Ent, V.L. Boyz - diff from article creator, Yung Ent - artist article Milly (rapper). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per duffbeerforme.--Karljoos (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDIED The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Milly (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable rapper lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. No listing for "Dope Boy Resurrection" in GHits. Perhaps a hoax. ttonyb (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to establish notability via a Google search for significant coverage by reliable third party sources with verifiable information. This included Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Web. Nothing at Allmusic. Nothing at Billboard. UTP Records appears to be a vanity label. Dlohcierekim 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax from blocked sockpuppeteer. continuation of hoaxing around UTP Records. [[3]], V.L. Boyz, Yung Ent duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was at it since then too. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yung_VL. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rene Van de Walle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable - just an ordinary priest and lecturer. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is extremely thin: the largest paragraph discusses his non-completion of a doctorate, which hardly seems notable. He was "associated with the Bible Society of India in its Hindi and Marathi common language translations," whatever that means. GS and GB find one citation, to the work on the Parables of Jesus, which he translated (but did not, as the article suggests, write). Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Radagast3 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Edgecombe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources are in the article to demonstrate notability of this inventor of a green fuel, and, given the subject's era, location and field I would expect to be able to find such sources online, but I see none. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. I agree with Phil's assertion, and the only non-Wikipedia Google hit I found was a blog. The article is also an autobiography, as it was created by User:ChrisEdgecombe. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though I am grateful for his work and he has a nice CV, I don't think he's notable enough to have an article here. I googled it and didn't get anything.--Karljoos (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I previously applied a PROD to the article as the subject fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suppose it's too late to add them to this discussion, but I'll also mention that HTF-15 and Biofuel 5, fuels claimed to have been developed by Edgecombe, look like articles that should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Google, and those products appear to be hoaxes created by SPA User:Geekiep. I've tagged the articles as such. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, I've done this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Google, and those products appear to be hoaxes created by SPA User:Geekiep. I've tagged the articles as such. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Demo 2002 (Orcustus album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mentioned in a couple of interviews, but this coverage is not substantial enough for a demo album, which is assumed to be non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I disagree. In my opinion, it is notable. It features two members of Gorgoroth and one member/ex-member of Gehenna and Enslaved. This discussion has already been had here two years ago, and ended in the article not being deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Demo_2002_(3rd_nomination) Here's another reference (now added to the article): - Allmusic: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fpfoxqlrld0e Bulgakoff (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Demo attracted considerable media attention having featured two members of Gorgoroth. Dark Prime (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Bulgakoff above - seems to have ample notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Formula One drivers by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Arbitrary ranking of racing drivers and their ages at death - or yesterday, if still living. Delete. I42 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is irrelevant to the topic of formula one. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Acebulf (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list puts two unrelated facts about a person together: 1. He was a Formula One driver. 2. He lived to be over 80 years old (the oldest so far is 99). There is no relationship between the two. None died on the racetrack and it is not claimed that their racing experience lengthened or shortened their lives. You might as well have "List of former girl scouts who lost the most money in the 2008 stock market crash" or any two items. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do be mindful of WP:BEANS, man - else someone will turn List of former girl scouts who lost money in the 2008 stock market crash by severity of loss will become a bluelink. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as unlikely, unhelpful and unencyclopedic concatenation of subjects per WP:SALAT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Karljoos (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it's trivia. It's fancruft. It's not notable. --Falcadore (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I additionally note that the relevant creating editor of this article has been active across very similar, and similarly deleteable list-articles. List of Presidents of Switzerland by longevity. List of German Federal Ministers by longevity. List of longest lived state leaders. How many of these trivial longevity lists are there? --Falcadore (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hopeless fancruft. Warrah (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. The ages of living former athletes is a reasonable fact to include in their articles, or perhaps in other contexts as one of several facts about a set of individuals - but we don't need an article for it. It's only really notable for the oldest living former driver - and that goes in his article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Why No Consensus? Because quite a few of the Keep votes are WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:INTERESTING. However the amount of continuing coverage of this person probably pushes them over the notability guidelines; some better sources would be useful though, or another AfD may be necessary in the future. Black Kite 22:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete nothing to suggest notability. Prod and Prod 2 were removed by anon. Boleyn3 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, lots of reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Events leading to prominence were of sufficient duration and length to survive the usual blp1e scrutiny. RayTalk 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable at all. The "lots of reliable sources" mentioned above look to me like a fairly moderate number of sources, many of which make only brief mention of Sarah York, and all of which, as far as I can see, refer to one incident. I totally fail to see how this gets past WP:BLP1E. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I just heard a story about this person on KCRW and found it fascinating. I went to Google her and found this article. I do not think this should be deleted. People will find her story compelling and there needs to be a place to get the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maberry (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite Keep: article could be improved, but the york-noriega saga is notable.--Milowent (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a pretty amazing story- lots of coverage including a great story on this american life Walmas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Woogie - reliable sources from 1988 through 2006 indicate ongoing notability. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.107.75 (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes it is only one event, but that one event has generated coverage over a significant period of time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a fascinating, largely relevant event that occuring during the final days of Noriega's regime over Panama. This article should not be deleted and is more than properly sourced. -- acascante1 (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Definitely keep. Important sidelight. Who knows what will be considered important in coming years? Sarah herself is not notable, but it was never about her personally. The event is part of history and illuminates the time. No need to be too picky with the raw material of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.156.125 (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By a simple count of the number of editors, "keep" is clearly winning by a long margin. However, looking at the reasons given for "keep", I see a different situation. In fact there are two kinds of reason given:
- There are such comments as "I just heard a story about this person on KCRW and found it fascinating", "the york-noriega saga is notable" (with no explanation how or why it is notable), "Seems like a pretty amazing story", "This is a fascinating, largely relevant event", and even simply "keep" with no further explanation: none of these addresses the question of evidence of notability.
- There is the comment "lots of reliable sources" with a link to a Google search page. Certainly there are lots of hits, but we are left to search through them ourselves to find which of them are reliable, which give significant coverage, etc. I find mostly minor mentions, relating only to a single incident. Then there are such comments as "reliable sources" wikilinked to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, but no indication at all of what those sources are; "has generated coverage over a significant period of time", but no indication what that "coverage" is.
- In summary, the "keep" arguments divide into (1) statements that the subject is interesting/significant, but no indication that there are sources to support that, and (2) statements that there are sources, but one of them gives inadequate indication what those sources are, and all the others give no such indication at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability arguments aside (she's not), this article fails WP:BLP1E, a WP:policy. There is no room for interpretation. Abductive (reasoning) 07:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, certainly room for interpretation of WP:BLP1E - news coverage was persistent even up to 1992. Here's a small sampling: 1988, 1988, 1889, 1990, 1990, 1992. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pim Conradi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable artist, no reliable surces provided, nor can I find any. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Woogee (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - There is a large amount of blog coverage, but those aren't reliable sources. He is the artists in residence at Area 10, but I have no idea if that is notable. A Google Scholar search [4] points to an article about holography. Perhaps somebody with JSTOR access can see what the coverage is like. There is a hint of coverage that would identify his role in hologrpahy here. And this indicates that the artists has gone by "Pim Giebels", and "James R.Conradi". A search with the other names don't really turn up anything more significant. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no really good proof of notability and the whole thing smacks of promotion. Borderline speedy if not for the references. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some more sources:[5][6][7][8][9]. Ty 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - none of the references listed above support notability. Please read WP:ARTIST - you need to cite non-trivial coverage, those links are to trivial coverage. ukexpat (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The International Journal, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively new magazine/journal. I can't find any evidence of it satisfying WP:ORG. I'd have let it go, but the only substantive contributors are a role account, Theinternationaljournal (talk · contribs) and the magazine's CEO, Alexandre.labrie (talk · contribs). The resultant COI is simply too high for this article to stay on Wikipedia in its current form. Blueboy96 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are a new company. Yes, one of our employees created the page, and I made some edits. That does not mean that the page should be deleted; if you think it must be edited in order to be more neutral, then I invite you to do so. Should the pages of all new companies be deleted? This does not make sense. I would also like to point out that we are relatively new to Wikipedia, and rather than confronting us this way, I thought that the community would be collaborative. If it is, then maybe you could help us to have a neutral presence on Wikipedia. That's all we are asking for.
Alexandre.labrie (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ORG as written,
serious concerns about WP:SPAM as well. Search for sources made extremely difficult by the use of very common terms in the name. RayTalk 21:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - comment it was not an advertisement as such, not written in a promotional way. There may be aa COI, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. The spammy issues are of concern for editing the article, but it was sloppy of me to mention them in a deletion discussion, as they are not so over the top as to call for G11. I've struck my mention above. Best, RayTalk 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The comments given about conflict of interest in the nomination are of little relevance, since the amount of promotion is very small and could easily be edited out. However, more important is the fact that no independent sources are given at all, and there is no evidence of notability anywhere else, as far as I can see. In answer to "Should the pages of all new companies be deleted?" the answer is no, but articles about almost all new companies should be deleted, as very few companies make a mark so quickly that they satisfy the notability criteria while they are still so new. There is no evidence that this one is in any way an exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Thanks for the comments everyone. We have not had press coverage in the mainstream media yet, which is why we do not have sources to link to. In fact, since we started a new publication, it might take even longer for us to have press coverage in the mainstream media, as covering competitors is not something that newspapers or TV stations do too often. This is why we only covered the very basic facts (history and mandate). Please advise if any changes are required. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the comments of Alexandre.labrie, the company fails notability standards. A new company, without reliable sources, cannot be included in Wikipedia. (GregJackP (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- comment Okay, so what you are saying is that basically, Wikipedia favors huge corporations that can push through articles in the mainstream media with their well-funded PR departments, is that correct? I knew that Wikipedia's standards were poor, but I didn't know they were ludicrous. As someone else pointed out, the article was not worded at all like advertising or promotion. I thought that Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia that attempted to document everything that exists. Well, while we have not been interviewed by the New York Times, we are a company and we have been running for almost 2 years. Take a look at our article again. We have a 100-word history and a 100-word mandate. How hard is it to document these very few facts about an existing and functioning company? Alexandre.labrie (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No, we are saying that a company has to be notable. There are plenty of examples of small or start-up companies that are in Wikipedia, but it is not based merely on existing. It is based on notability. Period. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not a list of everything that is in existence. (GregJackP (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- comment The goal of an encyclopedia, especially a free one, should be to present "the sum of all human knowledge," and this comes from your guru: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales. Having worked with editors that had at least 20 years of experience, the idea you advance is not only the most ridiculous one I have read in my entire existence, it is also the most ignorant one. Please go ahead and delete the 200 non-promotional words we wrote about our company. Doing so will undoubtedly rest my case and I will make sure to get our journalists on putting up a report about the dangers of participatory encyclopedias, where people who do not know about anything can control the information that others are trying to access. And of course, we will interview actual experts, not people who sit behind their computers all day and think that they are anywhere close to an editor. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The quote from Jimbo Wales about "the sum of all human knowledge" cannot reasonably be taken completely literally, or we would have such information as the time that I tied my shoelaces this morning. We aim to record as much as we can of information which is notable enough to have received significant attention in reliable published sources. Certainly there are many people who think we should be more inclusive, but calling an opinion you disagree with "ridiculous" is not constructive, and "ignorant" simply prompts me to think "ignorant of what?" If you think we are ignorant of some relevant facts then the helpful thing to do is to inform us of those facts. Finally, "If you don't promote my company then I will get at you by ridiculing you and threatening to give you bad publicity in my publications" is certainly unlikely to encourage anyone to be more sympathetic to your view. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I could not care less if people are sympathetic to my views or not. This is not about personal sentiments or who can convince the most people. Do you think that this is an argument or a game? What are you, 13? This is not about promotion either, and so you are also wrong about that. This is about allowing people access to basic information about a company that has been operating for two years. An extremely dangerous lack of judgement is required to put this on the same level as "I tied my shoelaces this morning."
So you argue that companies that have not had coverage in the mainstream media should not be included in Wikipedia. What would you say if the New York Times decided not to publish a story because no other publication has published it before them? This would be the apogee of ridicule. Yet, this is essentially what you advocate for your so-called free encyclopedia. In addition, you have misinterpreted and/or manipulated information by quoting things I have not said or thought. This is a severe misconduct which could result in very high legal consequences. The more this community misinterprets, manipulates, or attempts to control information, the more credibility it loses.
You are about to restrict access to basic information about a legal entity in the United States, and I were you I would be extremely, extremely careful before doing that. Alexandre.labrie (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You are the one who needs to be "extremely, extremely careful", and to worry about losing credibility. This is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or a web-hosting service, and as such we cover the sum of human knowledge in the sense of the sum of what has been published by reliable sources. This discussion will be found by web searches long after a decision is made about whether to delete the article in question, and will show anyone looking for information on the journal that you are more interested in spamming your way into an encyclopedia than in building a reputation based on the quality of the journal. I must say that your implication of immaturity ("What are you, 13?") rebounds on you - who but a 13-year old or under would imagine that there could be "very high legal consequences" at stake here? Grow up. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your comment about restricting access has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia is not obligated to publish anything about any entity (see WP:NOT) and you do not have any rights to have an article published here. If it is notable, according to our standards, it will be published. If not, then it won't. (GregJackP (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment. Suggest that some of the parties here might want to look at the legal threats policy. It's one of the fastest ways to get an account blocked that I know of. Studerby (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will not spend time trying to answer all the points made in the last post by Alexandre.labrie, most of which miss the point and are clearly not based on an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, I thought I would just make a response to two points. (1) An extremely dangerous lack of judgement is required to put this on the same level as "I tied my shoelaces this morning." If Alexandre.labrie would like to reread my comment above more carefully then he/she will see that that is not what I said. I mentioned the time at which I tied my shoelaces only to illustrate the point that including literally all human knowledge is not a realistic possibility. Once that point is accepted then one can go on to decide exactly what criteria one uses to include/exclude material: clearly Alexandre.labrie does not like the criteria specified in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but my point was that there must be some criteria: "include everything" is not viable. (2) This is not about personal sentiments or who can convince the most people. What is the point of taking part in a deletion discussion if not to argue ones own view in the hope of being persuasive? If it is just to express one's indignation that the people who have developed Wikipedia have a different opinion than oneself then it is probably a waste of time. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Not yet. Fails WP:ORG.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. This probably should have been closed as "nomination withdrawn" despite the outstanding delete !vote. In any case the consensus is clear, the AFD has been open for almost 7 days and it's obvious that no delete buttons are going to be pushed so let's say "keep". The issue of merging into Rabbi can be bought up on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sara Hurwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
She isn't all that notable by the looks of it. If decent notability is established, I will strike my vote but she seems to be just another female rabbi. If she's one of a few, I will also reconsider this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been established so I withdraw my nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - Title was rescinded right away. Without that, she is just an employee of a synagogue.--SuperHappyPerson (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Keep. She's not "just another female rabbi" - she's effectively a female orthodox rabbi, which makes her very notable. And even if she's no longer technically a rabbi, the controversy over her title makes her notable as it marks a significant development in the role of women in orthodox judaism. Sidefall (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - according to one of the sources she is (or was) the first female orthodox rabbi, which again is notable. Sidefall (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 99% of the Orthodox world (Agudath Yisrael, Rabbinical Council of America, all of the Hasidic sects, etc) don't consider that there can exist an Orthodox Rabbi who is not a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperHappyPerson (talk • contribs) 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes her even more notable because she was granted semicha by a member of said orthodox world. Sidefall (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidefall: She was granted rabbinic ordination by a Modern Orthodox rabbi, not an Orthodox one. They're not the same thing. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which makes her even more notable because she was granted semicha by a member of said orthodox world. Sidefall (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep As Sidefall wrote, Hurwitz is the only "rabbah" (female Orthodox Jewish rabbi). Her ordination and status have been tremendous news in Israel and abroad. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge with Women_in_Judaism#Orthodox_Judaism. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Rabbi#Women, per below. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Rabbi#Women. She may be the first female Modern Orthodox rabbi, but her notability for one event ends there. There are enough references at the bottom of the page to rewrite the Rabbi#Women section quite nicely. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second part of BLP1E is frequently overlooked. It says:
- "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography 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 sources."
- Considering that Hurwitz and her ordination have been in the news for more than a year, I would say that she's had persistent coverage. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik, I did read that second paragraph before I quoted it. Of course there's going to be a buzz about the first "female orthodox rabbi". But I expect that the furor will eventually bubble down. New news reports say that she completed her rabbinic studies but probably will not be officially ordained; instead, she will be called "spiritual leader". That doesn't seem so noteworthy to me, considering there are dozens of female spiritual leaders at the head of Conservative and Reform temples. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that "new news report" is from March 4, 2009—indicating (as I wrote) that Hurwitz and her semikha have been in the news for more then a year. Second, and more important, there may be hundreds of Conservative and Reform female spiritual leaders, just as there are dozens of Conservative and Reform female rabbis. That doesn't detract from the notability of the first Orthodox female rabbi.
- In other words, when the Catholic Church ordains a female priest, she will be notable despite the fact that the Episcopalians have had female priests for decades. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik, I did read that second paragraph before I quoted it. Of course there's going to be a buzz about the first "female orthodox rabbi". But I expect that the furor will eventually bubble down. New news reports say that she completed her rabbinic studies but probably will not be officially ordained; instead, she will be called "spiritual leader". That doesn't seem so noteworthy to me, considering there are dozens of female spiritual leaders at the head of Conservative and Reform temples. Yoninah (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second part of BLP1E is frequently overlooked. It says:
- Keep. Her notability is that she is the first orthodox female to receive semicha and to hold a position as a rabbi in a orthodox community. She has been in the news regularly over the past year. She has gotten coverage from almost every major Jewish news outlet and most of the general ones as well. Joe407 (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Malik and Joe407: the coverage of her continues, I just read another one from JTA referring to her "rock-star status"[10]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, for above reasons. Shmuel (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 C.O.P.S.. Black Kite 22:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barricade (C.O.P.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable, unsourced minor fictional character bio from C.O.P.S. that amounts to all PLOT/OR/SYNTH. nb: the others have be cleaned-up and this one was missed. Jack Merridew 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 19:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insufficient third person sources to justify a solo article like the other C.O.P.S. characters
DeleteDwanyewest (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Decided to strike that Delete, and make it Merge or delete would be better Dwanyewest (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all the C.O.P.S. characters onto a list, like how other fiction works. 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been transwiki'd to: annex:Wikia:Barricade (C.O.P.S.) -- Jack Merridew 05:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge but not into a bare list, but a combination article with substantial sections about all the characters. The other articles were closed as merge, but they were not merged, they were merely redirected. Presumably the same interference with consensus will happen here, but there is fortunately no way for the fiction minimalists to prevent proper merging at any times. DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as I see it:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) closed as no consensus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley closed as no consensus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ms. Demeanor closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardtop (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainframe (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highway (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirage (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullseye (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Yuma (C.O.P.S.) closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squeeky Kleen closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mace and Nightshade closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttons McBoomBoom closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor BadVibes and Buzzbomb closed as delete
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.O.P.S. For Kids closed as merge; awaiting merge
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turbo Tu-Tone closed as merge; redirected to show page; information for merge remains in history. Discussion underway at main article's talk, Talk:C.O.P.S.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundown (C.O.P.S.) closed as merge; redirected to show page; information for merge remains in history. Discussion underway at main article's talk, Talk:C.O.P.S.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LongArm closed as merge; redirected to show page (by me); information for merge remains in history. Merge-onus would be on those who supported a merge.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin P. "Bulletproof" Vess closed as redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictem closed as redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Berserko closed as redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowser and Blitz closed as redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bugman and Gaylord closed as redirect
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Krusher closed as redirect
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPS in popular cultureclosed as no consensus to delete (a different show)
- Sincerely, Jack Merridew 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not as I see it:
- Well maybe these C.O.P.S. character articles wouldn't get merged or deleted if they had reliable third person sources that independently discuss the subject. Rather than the same argument the the fiction is the source information. That's why the wikipedia has guidelines for notability and factual verification. Because otherwise how do we know what an individual is writing about a fictional character is factually based on a fanboy projecting their opinions, providing factually incorrect information or plain lying. Too be honest Mickey O'Malley and Big Boss (C.O.P.S.) should have been merged or deleted as little has been done to improve them also if they are gonna merge it fine but it will end up like the the Turbo Tu-Tone and Rock Krusher nothing of value preserved and only the name redirected . Dwanyewest (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been copypasta'd to: cops:Wikia:Barricade -- Jack Merridew 19:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job Jack. :) Okip 21:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is obvious that a consensus has developed that this one-season throw-away TV show does not deserve all these articles, and that there are no secondary sources. Topics without secondary sources must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 07:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. The smart choice and comprimise. Okip 21:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note this AFD was mentioned at talk:C.O.P.S.. Okip 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This AFD was mentioned at User talk:Jrh7925diff and User talk:Crazyharp81602diff too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremy Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sounds like just some IT employee who's worked on some possibly-important projects. Written by himself. With no refs except apparent quotes from co-workers similar to what one would find in every employee's job-review file. No actual WP:RS or specific claims of actual personal notability. Contested PROD. DMacks (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend delete. Notability not established. No reliable sources. Seems autobiographical. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G11 as blatantly promotional. RayTalk 21:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Not speedy, though. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like a resume. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lovely CV; I'm sure his mother is really proud, but this is not the place for this.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable biography. Would also fit as a G11 speedy. -- Bfigura (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; this violates the rule that Wikipedia is not a webhost or Facebook page. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as clearly not notable despite the assertion otherwise. If you have to use the adjective "notable" in the lede to assert notability, then you probably aren't notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - the author is identified as the subject - see the copyright release on his photo. Blatant. Racepacket (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maor levi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article Maor Levi has been deleted five times per PROD or CSD under concerns of notability and spam, and was apparently protected from page creation. This article (Maor levi with lowercase l) may have been created as a means to circumvent that protection.
While the article appears to cite 11 sources, nearly all of them are user-created web content, such as the subject's own MySpace page and YouTube channel, and user forums at his record label. None of these comprise reliable third-party sources to establish notability or verifiability.
A web search provides several similarly non-reliable sources such as Facebook and music sharing sites. Google News archives reveal three passing mentions in a list of new releases, a review of a compilation album containing one of his tracks, and a profile of another producer on the Anjunabeats label. Therefore, the subject does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cnilep (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt Should be speedied under A7 and salted due to repeated re-creation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Salting is recommended b/c of repeated re-creation of an article about a nn musician.RayTalk 21:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guys this article has been re-created five times. I think that says a thing or two about the musician's credibility. Furthermore at least one of the references is notable (to my knowledge at least -- I don't know what your guys' standards are exactly) -- an interview with InlineDJ (see here). I scoured the web trying to find more sources but I just couldn't find any. In any case this guy is a great artist and the few singles he's released are some of the best trance tracks I've ever heard. Furthermore I spent a lot of time working on the page. Please don't delete it again.. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Credibility" and "popularity" are not the same as "notability", which has a specialized usage hereabouts. Cnilep (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing out repeated re-creation. I've added a proposal to salt to my comments above. RayTalk 17:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "salt"? Excuse my ignorance. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Salting" an article is a means of preventing the article from being re-created without approval from an administrator. This article was created with a lower-case "l" in Levi because Maor Levi is salted. See WP:SALT for more information. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "salt"? Excuse my ignorance. el3ctr0nika (Talk | Contribs) 01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This deleted page Maor Levi is now at Maor Levi (musician). |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per nomination withdrawal JForget 00:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Status paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged as unreferenced since November 2008, as neologism since November 2009. Article consists of a dictionary definition only. No references. Google, Google Scholar, Scirus provided no evidence of notability or even usage.no longer applicable Appears to be invention of Xzex (talk · contribs) Paradoctor (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: Article has been expanded and sourced, the added material indicates that at least a disambiguation page should be in place. Paradoctor (talk) 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend delete. No notability. No references. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added sources that establish notability, per WP:N. Have a nice day. SilverserenC 19:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, some of the sources seem confused. Regarding the migration article, the circumstances of someone or something being more valuable in one environment than in another isn't a paradox and the author's use of the word "paradox" to describe the situation is incorrect. It isn't paradoxical that snowshoes are more valuable and useful in Greenland than they are in Burundi. As for the African HIV article, the discovery that reality differs from the author's assumptions doesn't amount to a paradox. I'm getting the impression that there are researchers out there who think "paradox" means "irony". —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pure dictionary definition. I fail to see the relevance of most of the external links, except for the Google Docs link, which is clearly not a RS. RayTalk 21:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the Google Docs link not a reliable source? And the other sources are all various examples of a status paradox. SilverserenC 21:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published. See the guideline on reliable sources. Best, RayTalk 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me from where it is self-published, because, as I see it, it isn't. It is a paper written in an article for, what I would assume, to be some sort of historical journal, as the source of it leads here, which is a Periodical Archive and Database. SilverserenC 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for imprecise wording - if we can't tell where (or, to be particularly skeptical, if) this was published, we cannot evaluate the reliability of the source. Hence, I consider this unreliable. Furthermore, the coverage of the term inside that particular document was hardly what you could call significant - it merely uses the word, bringing us back to WP:DICDEF. Best, RayTalk 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is a google docs link doesn't make it unreliable. Also, the other sources are from other reliable places, how are they not relevant? SilverserenC 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Docs isn't a "source" at all: writing a document on Google Docs confers no more reliability than writing it on a blog or a wiki. The only source here is the author. Do you believe Beatrix Balogh to qualify as a "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? And, by the way, "published" in this sense implies "having a publisher", such as a newspaper known for journalistic integrity or a respected academic publishing house, not in the sense that everything one writes in a blog or a wiki is "published". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is a google docs link doesn't make it unreliable. Also, the other sources are from other reliable places, how are they not relevant? SilverserenC 06:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for imprecise wording - if we can't tell where (or, to be particularly skeptical, if) this was published, we cannot evaluate the reliability of the source. Hence, I consider this unreliable. Furthermore, the coverage of the term inside that particular document was hardly what you could call significant - it merely uses the word, bringing us back to WP:DICDEF. Best, RayTalk 03:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show me from where it is self-published, because, as I see it, it isn't. It is a paper written in an article for, what I would assume, to be some sort of historical journal, as the source of it leads here, which is a Periodical Archive and Database. SilverserenC 22:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published. See the guideline on reliable sources. Best, RayTalk 21:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After this edit, we only need someone speaking Hungarian to confirm that Elsö Század is an academic journal. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or simply use Google translate. --Lambiam 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, wow, that certainly looks notable. SilverserenC 22:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or simply use Google translate. --Lambiam 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After this edit, we only need someone speaking Hungarian to confirm that Elsö Század is an academic journal. Paradoctor (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The concept of "status paradox of migration" seems well established in the literature. It is not clear to me whether that is also true for the other cases of status paradoxes described in this article. It is also not clear to me that these various status paradoxes are all instances of a notable generic concept of "status paradox" as defined in the lede. Unfortunately that definition is so incomprehensible that I can't make out how it relates to the kinds of status paradox described in the various sections; shouldn't the notion of (ascribed?) social status play a role in the definition? --Lambiam 23:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering the same thing, about whether these are instances of the same generic concept, or whether it's a bunch of people coining the term independently with a variety of senses. I understood the original definition, before the article got expanded, to be a purely set-theoretical concept, an example of which is the set S of all sets don't contain themselves. Is S a member of S? If it is, then it contains itself, violating the requirement for inclusion in S. But then if it doesn't contain itself, then as a set that doesn't contain itself, it is a member of S, so it does contain itself. That's the kind of situation I thought that "status paradox" was meant to refer to. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, the Status Paradox of Migration is fairly close to the definition you're thinking of. Stuck between two classes. But the others complicate things. We might need to end up just making it a disambiguation page and making articles for all the rest, though that doesn't need to be done now. That can always be done after we make the current article longer and we decide it's necessary to do that. Anyways, the nominator withdrew, so this will end up archived soon. SilverserenC 06:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to be so formal, I'll listen to "PD". ;) Anyway, I just found out that there is a more appropriate form: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set_index_articles. That leaves us with "mere" content issues. Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to Lose (Margo Smith album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-released album, no secondary sources. No hits on Gnews, 133 unique hits on Google — just the bare minimum of directory listings on the likes of Allmusic, Amazon and CMT without a single secondary source that goes beyond the most trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - from the looks of it none of her actual charting albums released in the 1980s even have articles, so I don't see how thid non-notable self-released album needs an article. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no significant coverage for this release; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grove (Magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable magazine, no reliable sources found.
Deprodded by creator, taking to AfD instead. Jarkeld (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Newly started campus magazine. Hasn't had independent coverage or any awards/recognition yet. In response to the AfD, article creator has compared (in article talk page) this magazine to Durham21. While Durham21 has won some independent awards and seems to have some coverage in RS, Grove doesn't have either of them. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable at this time. I was going to suggest a merge to Durham University but I see it is already there, with one sentence under "student media" - which seems about right. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Dudelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable executive of two companies, neither of which have an article here. Best claim to notability I could find was as a contributing writer to Harp (magazine), which itself is of dubious notability and no longer exists. Only incoming links here are credits for photographs on Wikipedia and on Commons. Wknight94 talk 14:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He does get a few minor hits at Google News, where he is quoted in minor publications, but overall not notable - despite the article's 18 references which do not meet the WP:RS reliable source criterion. Article appears to have been created by the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- McGill Science Undergraduate Research Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undergraduate annual science journal that was established 4 years ago at McGill and has published 4 issues. The only indications for notability are the claim that it is one of the first undergraduate science journals in North America and that it was named "publication of the year" by McGill's Student Society. Apparently not indexed anywhere. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Purely undergraduate research collections of this sort spring up from time to time at most sufficiently sizeable institutions. Like most short-lived student publications, they have no notability worth speaking of. RayTalk 21:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think many universities have these. Most don't pass Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). I see no sign that this one is an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Not indexed anywhere, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), and does not meet WP:N either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Science Undergraduate Society of McGill University. Why delete when you have a much better alternative. It would make an excellent expansion of the existing section. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The journal warrants at most 1-2 sentences in the target article you suggest, and a formal merge is not necessary in such a case. On the other hand, a merge and redirect option has an obvious drawback: it is far too easy to undo it and then we'd be back here again. A plain delete is preferable in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any further merge or redirect discussions can be held on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bellingham Bells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested redirect. Non-notable amateur sporting team, should be redirected to league page. Since it's a contested redirect, it should probably be fully protected too. tedder (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note that even if redirected we don't normal protect over a content dispute, except briefly during an edit war. DES (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow page to stay. Seven of the nine West Coast League teams have dedicated pages and are not redirects. Additionally, other comparable teams in the Northwoods League all have dedicated pages and not redirects. —Preceding contribs) 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC) --Jdstottle (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Jdstottle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS; that doesn't mean those pages shouldn't be deleted also. The issue is if the team (and the league) meet WP:CLUB, especially the "local chapters" bit. tedder (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted the NAC close as clearly inappropriate. This should be allowed to run its course. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Keep or redirect, obviously, preferably as a speedy keep. Nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion, and redirects are best discussed on talkpages. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylanfromthenorth has a point. No one has made an argument for deletion. An argument for deletion on notability could be made, but given the statements now in the article I expect notability could be established. Keep unless soem better reaosn for doing something else is presented. DES (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Close this down and take it to the talk page. Nobody has brought forth any reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_March_21 for the last time this was speedy closed. DES (talk)!
- I did, which is why I came here in the first place. The re-opening is pointless, but I'm not going to re-close it, since obviously a non-admin close isn't good enough. Perhaps I should rephrase it and say that an ADMIN should re-close it. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. We might have been able to handle it at the article talk page w/o bringing it to the wider AFD community, but now that it's here, we might as well evaluate on the merits. RayTalk 03:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge But do not protect. Also, keep edit history, since it is valuable for reviewing the article's past. Dew Kane (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- There has been little debate worth validating a request for deletion. Close this down as it was previously done and keep the article.--66.165.45.18 (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and discuss the merits of a redirect on the article's talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christian O'Brien. Black Kite 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kharsag Epics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The name 'Kharsag Epics' is the personal creation of the fringe writer Christian O'Brien and is only mentioned on sites relating to him, it seems to have no recognition in any reliable sources that I can find. So, no notability and Wikipedia is the only respectable site I've found mentioning these 'epics' (or indeed O'Brien, who has no qualifications in history or linguistics, he was a geologist and apparently basically self-published, his books are described as 'printed[11]' not published by Dianthus Publishing, whose output seems to have been his books and a cricket book.). Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have listed this article for rescue. SilverserenC 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is very clearly notable, the problem was obtaining the right sources. Now that they are there, they just need to be slipped into the article itself. SilverserenC 18:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Self-published books, personal websites, tourist agencies, and blog responses are not 'the right sources'. One of your sources only casually mentioned the subject in a short sentence along with another real text. You haven't found any reliable sources discussing these so-called Kharsag Epics. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just say that they're self-published books, prove it. And can you please link me to the policy against self-published books?
- Please also explain which ones are personal websites and which are blog responses as well. SilverserenC 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy on self-published books as sources (you're saying they should be in the article) is at WP:SPS. Iuniverse is a self-publisher[12] ditto Perfect World [13] which is his own imprint. Mysterious Planet is Geoff Ward's personal website, Red Ice couldn't be used as a RS in any case, the blog response on that page is clearly labelled 'blog response' so is WP:ELNO, and the statement about creators creating humanity as a slave race - "This is also mentioned in the Kharsag Epics and The Epic of Giigamesh." it just a trivial mention in a fringe book. Only a handful of fringe sites recognise these 'Kharsag Epics'. Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources independent of O'Brien can be found to source the name of this article and the accuracy of the translated descriptions within this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The name Kharsag is clearly translated reliably and independently of O'Brien by George Aaron Barton, Hursag is the later translation again independent and reliably by Samuel Noah Kramer. The Museum tablets themselves should qualify as sources and numbers have been listed. I have added additional citations from other published sources (Gagnon and Gagne) to show printed sources have sufficient peer review. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that Kharsag is mentioned by Barton, the issue is whether there is a group of documents known as the 'Kharsag Epics'. Gagne's book on Food Energetics and Gagnon's book which even with the title or the correct ISBN isn't turning up on WorldCat and is #2,242,309 on Amazon.com's sales rank is not a reliable source either. We shouldn't be using translations by a non-linguist when we have accepted translations. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — None of the sources for "They were gathered from Sumerian tablets..." seem to be good. One attributes the belief to "esoteric scholars," one seems to be a work of fiction, and one is an abstract of a poster session. Rees11 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the problem is with the name, I would argue that Barton's original title "Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions" has lost relevance and could prove misleading due to the growth and acceptance of Sumerology since it's publication in 1918, and that a majority of scholars (fringe or otherwise) studying the subject nowadays refer to the poems as 'The Kharsag Epics'. Paul Bedson (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — I have found the following personal scholarly references to the epics, some well qualified, any ideas how to link or use them to support elements of this article would be appreciated.
Genius of the Few References
"Of no less importance and substance than the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, the O'Brien scholarship applied to the linked Kharsag Epics now demands the recognition and respect it has long deserved from the archaeological establishment" - "The fact that O'Brien, using his milti-disciplinary skills, brings so much additional evidence in support of his basic thesis for the revision of the Genesis text into a down to earth farming story, must encourage other scholars to climb out of religious straightjackets and seek to confirm the truth."
Edmund Marriage The Patrick Foundation.
"This book is a neglected classic which has a revolutionary thesis of fundamental importance to our understanding of the ancient past" - "Based on the O'Brien deep knowledge of ancient Middle Eastern sites and languages, it completely re-interprets the origins of civilisation and pushes the dates back by thousands of years".
Nigel Blair Author and Coordinator of the Wessex Research Group Network.
"As a result of Christian O'Brien's translation of this ancient story from these clay tablets from the Nippur library, the whole Genesis story lies open for re-examination" - "In writing about books, Francis Bacon declared that there were some few to be chewed and digested - The Genius of the Few is such a book".
Joel Disher The Rosicrucian Digest, USA.
"The thesis of the book is so startling that it should have caused a major controversy when it was first published. However it was too controversial for the scholars and too sober and erudite for the popular audience, yet since that time it has attracted a growing number of readers. With its careful, scholarly and un-sensational approach, the evidence for the real existence of the Anannage as the founders of civilization strikes me as fascinating and convincing".
Colin Wilson Best selling author and broadcaster.
"Stunning ! - This book has everything to commend it as a valuable academic gem - it certainly rates as a Five Star accomplishment".
Sir Lawrence Gardiner Author and acclaimed sovereign and chivalric genealogist.
"I have placed it in the Department Library where I am sure it will be most useful as it is likely to provoke response from archaeologists and scientists of all types. You are to be congratulated on producing such a work".
Dr Irving Finkel Western Asiatic Department of the British Museum.
References for 'The Shining Ones'
A valuable source would be The Shining Ones, by Christian and Barbara Joy O'Brien. I need to add that book to my References page and may have done so by the time you read this. I had not covered it in Open SETI because of its occasional dependence on "supernatural" explanations, which I felt would be out of bounds for the target readership. It is not out of bounds for this discussion, however! At any rate, what distinguishes this book (and others by the authors, though this is the complete compendium) is its use of important material from the Kharsag Epics and recent translations of various Codices and other apocryphal and gnostic works. The O'Briens have assembled a strikingly detailed, logical, and coherent picture of an early project or colony that resulted in the institution of the Mesopotamian cultures. Much of the story can be discerned in more well-known scriptural texts, but MUCH less clearly - Gary Zetlin - SETI Institute. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of the above are from fringe writers/groups except Finkel, and the source for that is the 'official' website[14]. And it's out of context. Gardiner is not considered a genealogist by mainstream genealogists (I won't write what they say about him, but it isn't nice). Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you have a problem with the name, discuss renaming it. That isn't a reason to delete something that is clearly notable.
- The Kharsag Epics is the name given by geologist Christian O'Brien to a series of epic poems from Mesopotamia (ancient Iraq) and are among the earliest known works of literary writing. Scholars believe that these texts originated as a series of legends and poems about the earliest mythological hero-gods including An, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsag in a location called Kharsag.
Its among the earliest known works of literary writing. That makes it notable. Does anyone doubt these works were quite famous in that nation way back in the day? Notability is not dated after all. There are no suggested guidelines on how to deal with ancient literature such as this, so use common sense. Verifiability and all other policies have been met. Dream Focus 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dream Focus, the article is about a carefully selected and small number of texts which doesn't seem to be grouped in this way by any scholarly sources. That's the problem. If we retitle it 'Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions' it would be an entirely different article. Is that what you are suggesting? This article is about a non-notable fringe view of this subset of existing Babylonian texts. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions by George A. Barton, 1918, Yale University Press
- This one alone should count for a considerable amount. SilverserenC 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added conflicting theories that mention kharsag and the kharsag epics along with review of the O'Brien material by Professor Emilio Spedicato and published on better websites like The University of Louisiana and The University of Bergamo. Hopefully this will resolve the reliability issues. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop voting Keep. You already voted once and once is all that you are allowed. Anything else you say in this AfD after that should be labeled Comment instead. Otherwise, it looks like you're trying to game the system, which won't work anyways, because Wikipedia isn't a poll. SilverserenC 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I wasn't familiar with the system and have amended the posts as suggested. Thanks. Paul Bedson (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I just had to get all policy on you there, for a second. ;P SilverserenC 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have closed down on an edit conflict. The 'theories' mentioned by Paul are not published by any university, they are simply on university web servers, quite a different thing. They are fringe and self-published. Spedicato is a mathematician who also writes about subjects such as Atlantis, no matter where he writes he is still fringe when he writes on this subject, not what we need which are mainstream sources calling these particular texts the 'Kharsag Epics'. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that you just have a problem with using the right name and not with the notability of the subject? SilverserenC 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have found a good published German source calling them 'The Kharsag Tablets', not sure if that helps. I'll bow to a name change if it does. Paul Bedson (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think calling them either the "Kharsag Tablets" or the "Tablets of Kharsag" sounds good. I'm not sure what the naming policy is in this case, though I know there is one. According to the formatting policy, i'm pretty sure the former is the one we should be going with. SilverserenC 03:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must have closed down on an edit conflict. The 'theories' mentioned by Paul are not published by any university, they are simply on university web servers, quite a different thing. They are fringe and self-published. Spedicato is a mathematician who also writes about subjects such as Atlantis, no matter where he writes he is still fringe when he writes on this subject, not what we need which are mainstream sources calling these particular texts the 'Kharsag Epics'. Dougweller (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found that Googling "Kharsag tablets" found a few more sources that I added into the External Links section. It kind further shows we should rename to Kharsag Tablets. SilverserenC 03:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That copyvio link got put back, I've deleted it again. Carlos Calvet (the German source) got the name from Colin Wilson's book who cited O'Brien, so not only does that not help, the magazine isn't an RS and Calvet's own book is selfpublished.[15] Every source that mentions Kharsag Tablets so far is fringe, quite a few self-published. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paul, you've linked to the French Wikipedia article for Anton Parks. We don't use Wikipedias as RS, but you've made my point here, it says "Anton Parks is a Franco-German writer who covers the topics of 'Ufology, the hollow Earth, the humanoid reptiles and civilization of Sumer. His next (and 4th) book called The Awakening of 1Phoenix. It is a great admirer of Joseph F. Blumrich. His theories are similar to those of Zecharia Sitchin, although they are challenging them on certain points." That's the sort of support O'Brien's idea gets. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I share many of your views on these topics (especially Stitchin) Doug and really wish that the references could be limited to Kramer, Barton and O'Brien where mention of these wild, fringe theories - reptiles, UFOs, hollow earth and the like are avoided or minimised. I personally feel that this is where the scholarly, academic research has been perverted and perhaps the root cause that few verifiable sources are published. I am hoping Gardner's previous books (which like you I will refrain from comment about) that have been bestsellers with high sales ranks, and other non-self-published sources will prove adequately verifiable for the purposes of rescue. Paul Bedson (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Paul, you've linked to the French Wikipedia article for Anton Parks. We don't use Wikipedias as RS, but you've made my point here, it says "Anton Parks is a Franco-German writer who covers the topics of 'Ufology, the hollow Earth, the humanoid reptiles and civilization of Sumer. His next (and 4th) book called The Awakening of 1Phoenix. It is a great admirer of Joseph F. Blumrich. His theories are similar to those of Zecharia Sitchin, although they are challenging them on certain points." That's the sort of support O'Brien's idea gets. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That copyvio link got put back, I've deleted it again. Carlos Calvet (the German source) got the name from Colin Wilson's book who cited O'Brien, so not only does that not help, the magazine isn't an RS and Calvet's own book is selfpublished.[15] Every source that mentions Kharsag Tablets so far is fringe, quite a few self-published. Dougweller (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Note the only real scholarship glanced at in that article are the original translators etc. whose work O'Brian has piggy-backed off in elaborating his whimsical theories. Could be mentioned in the article on him, but given that no serious scholars in the field care about it we needn't either. Misarxist (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI suggest further study of O'Brien's theory that agriculture developed from a location in Lebanon, which is something no serious scholar could do in the last 30 years of wars there. O'Brien has made the only updated complete (as possible) translation of these tablets since 1918 which are 92 years out of date. I'm happy for name change in any case, but how we can let some of our civilization's earliest writing become something we shouldn't care about is a matter of deep concern. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment O'Brien is not qualified as a translator or an archeologist. I don't understand your last sentence. If you are suggesting that it is Wikipedia's role to somehow bring some idea to public attention, you completely misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully understand it's not to bring ideas to public attention and will run off and try to clean up this article along those guidelines to prove it ;-). I was expressing my concerns over opinions about lack of notability and only hope more editors agree that some of these sources do meet that, neutrality and verifiability requirements. Further advice to help always welcome. Paul Bedson (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI suggest further study of O'Brien's theory that agriculture developed from a location in Lebanon, which is something no serious scholar could do in the last 30 years of wars there. O'Brien has made the only updated complete (as possible) translation of these tablets since 1918 which are 92 years out of date. I'm happy for name change in any case, but how we can let some of our civilization's earliest writing become something we shouldn't care about is a matter of deep concern. Paul Bedson (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ClovisPt (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read any of what was even said in here? SilverserenC 19:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The original cylinders exist and are amongst the oldest writings by man. for example the Nippur archaic cylinder, dated 2,500 BC by prof. Barton, see Miscellaneous Babylonian inscriptions (New Haven, 1918), or see external here: [16]. "Kharsag chapter 2" is based on this cylinder (Pennsylvania's tablet no. 8,383). However note that Barton Equates "Kharsag chapter 1" / Pennsylvania tablet no. 14,005 with Dilmun: [it's]"a didactic poem in 61 lines on the period of pre-culture and institution of paradise by the earth-god and the water-god in Dilmun", see [17]. I have the feeling that O'Brien combined several unrelated tablets to make up a wonderful story. The cylinders and tablets might even be from various time-periods, rendering O'Brien's version void as he presents all as one. Patrick1982 (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - probable nonsense, but notable nonsense nonetheless. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Just out of curiousity, how is this cherry-picked collection of texts, translated by someone who is self-taught, notable in its own article? Not the Sumerian texts, not the archaic cylinder, this cherry-picked set with a translation no academic has accepted. We can't retitle it because it is about O'Brien's ideas, not actually about the texts themselves which wouldn't normally be grouped this way. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add that even if we had an article about these Sumerian texts, I think that O'Brien's take on them is not significant enough to be included, ie it falls under WP:Undue. I think he is notable enough to have his own article (I've found a journal review of one of his articles), and anything about this belong there. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- It is typical that an ancient text will only be transcribed and publihsed by one author. For WP authors to rubbish it is actually a variety of WP:OR. If it is rubbish, some one needs to find WP:RS dismissing it as such, preferably from academic authors. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but it is not mere patent nonsense. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Christian O'Brien. We need to distinguish between the texts themselves and O'Brien's Fringe theories about them. Those parts of the article devoted to O'Brien's theories should be merged into the article on O'Brien. That said, I would think that ancient Babylonian texts would be considered notable a simply for their rarity and age ... The question is what to call that article (or individual articles if they are better discussed individually). If the name "Kharsag Epics" is associated with O'Brien's Fringe theories, then we need a different article title (or set of titles) for articles on the text themselves. Question... are these texts ever discussed by legitimate scholars (individually if not as a group), and if so, how do the scholars refer to them? Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI've been trying my best to find out more. Some of the texts have only been translated by O'Brien, who is self-taught, and although they might be mentioned in O'Brien's article briefly (remembering WP:UNDUE, I don't see how they could be included in a serious article about Babylonian texts. The two that I can find references to aren't grouped by the references. (Sorry, I'm repeating myself I think). One of the ones that could be mentioned is the Nippur archaic cylinder mentioned about by Patrick1982. If it helps, Kharsag is often spelled Hursag (both are used by reputable sources), Anannage is O'Brien's name for the Anunnaki which isn't normally translated as 'Shining Ones'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dougweller's got the right view on this. O'Brien's fringy views can be covered at the article about him. The individual Sumerian texts should have their own articles (also Sumerian religion, Mesopotamian mythology, etc.) and since they're studied by specialists (not self-taught geologists), O'Brien's views do not need to be covered in those articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability suggested, as alternative history it has not reached Von Danikenesque proportions of popularity, I can see no reason why wikipedia needs an article on this subject. Move the concept-outline parts into the author page, with sections on what book contains what ideas. Completely remove the list of specific Sumerian texts the author used as being undue weight is being placed on trivia - the authors imagination is more significant than his selection of sources. Davémon (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If ancient texts really mention a mythical place called Kharsag or Hursag, and if Samuel Kramer et. al. do allude to such a place, then what we should really have is an article titled Hursag or Kharsag, to include whatever information or speculation there is published on it. (I don't know which spelling is more appropriate or common, but someone else might...) I agree that the "other dimension" stuff is flaky, but I suppose it could be very briefly mentioned, per due weight. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kharsag is never mentioned in any scientific paper I've found so far. I tried to Google every tablet, but information remains scarse, as there are no recent translations of these tablets it seems. There is referral to them in serveral old books and publications, but most are only accessible through membership library websites (i.e. jstor.org & atypon-link.com). Hursag just means "natural dam" or "foothill", so there's plenty of references of this word, but not as the name for a settlement for some "shining ones"! in fact, tablet 8384 talks about a temple of Kêš in Erech (so no Kharsag!), where "the Anunnaki are the high priests" ([18], P.50-57). It really looks like "Kharsag" is just fictional and nothing more. How about it's notability then? It is reffered to in some (fringe) books like 'From the Ashes of Angels' by Andrew Collins and some websites, but this does not meet WP's criteria enough to justificate it's own article, but it can be seen as Panbabylonism. Patrick1982 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Christian O'Brien. As per my comment above. Patrick1982 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for joining the discussion and research on this subject. I am very tempted to publish a Kharsag page to further the merge discussions better and have one in my sandbox that was just waiting for a verifiable source. Barton's document should be considered scientific however and his use of the word in one of the first creation myths in the Nippur cylinder "The holy Tigris, the holy Euphrates, the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag" surely establishes this as a noteable and verified word that requires further investigation into it's specific use in this context. Similar to words like "Edin" which have become very specifically used, despite being commonly translated as "steppe" or "plain". Paul Bedson (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Formula One - New team entry process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is already covered on the 2010 season page and it was not an event significant enough to justify its own page; therefore, it is completely unnecessary.
- Delete per nom.--Midgrid(talk) 11:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold and redirect it, per WP:BEFORE#4? Lugnuts (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already been merged into the season proper page. And said season article is the only regular page (ie not a User or Talk page) that links to it. A re-direct would serve little purpose because unless people are specifically looking for it, no-one is going to land there, especially considering the fact that there is almost nothing on the page that isn't covered in the season overview. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's more information about this on the 2010 Formula One season article and - as a result - is completly redundant. Had I spotted when it was created, I'd have CSDed it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - redundant page. QueenCake (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into 2010 Formula One season.--Jimbo W junior (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep conditionally We have to change the name to Formula One-New Teams' Entry proceses and then include information on all Formula One's new teams' entry processes. That means: The 2008 process, should be entered for example. If this is not made then I suggest that you merge the page with 2010 formula one season. Wild mine (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though I like the keeping of it conditionally. However, there's virtually nothing available on the 2008 process, only that there were twenty-two applicants and two of them were Prodrive and Carlin Motorsport. Most of what happens in the selection process is kept secret since it involves disclosing detailed financial information. And besides, it's only really been since the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 that F1 has exploded all over the internet. They were pretty slow in that resepct. I say delete for now, and if more information becomes available for the 2011 selection process, we can always re-make it in the future. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - mspete93 17:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect to List of current Metro Local bus routes. Nothing to merge. No nomination argument to support deletion rather than create a potentially useful redirect. No need to prolong this one. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of bus routes in Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is woefully imcomplete. However, another page, List of current Metro Local bus routes, is already complete thus making this page superfluous. Jkfp2004 (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of current Metro Local bus routes per nom. In fact, this AFD is probably not necessary. Wknight94 talk 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not just speedy redirect to List of current Metro Local bus routes then? There was really no need to AfD this. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)*
Footballer who has not played at a fully professional level. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 12:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as Jimbo already stated above. It looks to me like someone trying to save a pet article from deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blue Square North is not fully professional, so this athlete fails WP:ATH. Coverage falls well below the WP:GNG threshhold. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He definitely fails the relevant notability criteria, as already pointed out here. Bettia (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Water security and emergency preparedness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Rambles about this topic, and seems to be more like an essay. Mostly insalvageable. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the creator of this article (and a new Wikipedian), I would like more clarification on the reasons that this article is "not notable", and how it should be improved. It deems note in the eyes of many people, as government agencies around the world (such as the US EPA and American Water Works Association) have noted the issue as an important one, including enacting regulation to address water security issues. In addition, many citations are included in the article. That said, it is only the beginning of this article, and input on its improvement is welcome. In addition, the most correct term for the topic is truly "water security", though this term is also used in the meaning of "capacity of a population to ensure that they continue to have access to potable water". It should be possible to see this article when "water security" is searched. Suggestions and discussion would be greatly appreciated. LindseyEKerr (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously notable. See Urban water Security, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename to "water security" Article has decent references, and I think it is easily salvagable, esp. with the addition of material noted by LindseyEKerr: "the meaning of "capacity of a population to ensure that they continue to have access to potable water" --Nuujinn (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doctor Jekill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BAND. The only sources in the article are to the band's own website, and Google turns up nothing but MySpace pages. In addition, the creator started the article in June 2006 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nominator: fails WP:BAND. Jarkeld (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fails to meet the requirements of WP:BAND, Delete. ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Purplemelon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Looks like this article was created in 2007 and the band still have not released an album?! No reliable third-party sources listed. In Google search, all I found was a large amount of self-promotion. One blog about Paul McCartney and guest band Purple Melon, but the only mention of Purple Melon was in the left bar - maybe that's a joke/hoax? Wknight94 talk 07:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability. Clubmarx (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for above stated reasons of non-notability and per wp:band. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Offramp (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND and also WP:AUTO, as the article was created by a member of the band. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No assertion of adequate notability. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources, no evidence of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted per CSD A7 caknuck ° needs to be running more often 07:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Levi Digital Entertaiment ™ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable record label, article possibly created by its founder. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (A7) consider WP:SNOW Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did consider CSD A7 as non-notable company, but it saying "record label" confused me... Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. A whopping three Ghits: two Wikipedia, one mirror (and I also agree with the nominator about WP:COI). Even the Facebook "reference" didn't come up. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Borrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Football player who has not played at a fully professional level. Doesn't meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 12:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete footballer fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-pro level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 12:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient WP:RS to pass WP:ATHLETE -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 15:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Having never played proffessionally, he fails WP:ATHLETE, and the absence significant coverage means this article does not merit keeping under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of V (2009_TV_series) episodes. The "secondary sources" are merely imdb and plot re-tellings, there's no in depth coverage (as is usual on such articles). Thus, since an obvious merge target exists, that is the obvious answer Black Kite 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There Is No Normal Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom, contested prod. Little or no real world relevance. No evidence that this episode is particularly notable. Consists entirely of plot and trivia.
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:
- A Bright New Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- It's Only the Beginning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corporation Cart (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC) — Corporation Cart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so please request deletion for each episode of The Simpsons, or Family Guy, or Star Trek, or House... C'mon man... By the way, I totally disagree with the request of deletion. --Wizard IT (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article must be examined on its own merit, or in this case lack thereof. 121.45.214.114 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know this is in the wrong place, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS specifically mentions Star Trek and that it DOESN'T examine each article on it's own merit but instead includes them all, simply because it's Star Trek. Lime in the Coconut 18:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Each article must be examined on its own merit, or in this case lack thereof. 121.45.214.114 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All plot and trivia. 121.45.214.114 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC) — 121.45.214.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Corporation Cart (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite their lack of previous edits, the nominator and IP are correct. There are no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I've found some secodnary sources, and lots of trivial mentions. I'd like to find and add reviews, but I don't have the time to look through huge pile of Ghits. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while i'm not a wiki lawyer and can't spout off past debate discussions, I don't see how this article "isn't particularly notable". I can see how it only consists of plot at it's current state but if you look at a lot of similar articles there's not much more to add besides guest stars, any references to other works (dismissed as trivia) or maybe the soundtrack (again, trivial). I see the references to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but in that very article, under the section "Creation of articles" it references the various Star Trek series and that every episode in every series is given an article. I'm at a loss looking through policies to find a model for articles on TV shows. I looked through The Sopranos and noticed every single episode has an article. Again, not trying to go with the "other stuff" argument but trying to find an established precedent. None of the Sopranos' articles I read had references, and consist of little more than plot. The same can be said for 99% of TV episode articles. The difference here, as I see it, is that this show is in it's first season and particularly popular (#2 in timeslot). It hasn't been broadcast worldwide yet. It's still in the first season, with several episodes to come. Look at the article on the pilot episode... certainly it is a much more in-depth article. Given time (reasonable would be at least the end of the season, or even better, until the DVDs come out with extra material to add to each article) each page would look like the pilot's or the Sopranos, Simpsons, etc. It's too early IMO to delete this page. But if someone could point to a policy or precedent for TV episodes, it would make this much more cut and dry. Lime in the Coconut 16:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This was a well-written summary of a TV show and it was useful for me. ThunderE6 (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of V (2009 TV series) episodes. Virtually all nationally broadcast television programs end up having enough real-world information to write an article, so I don't really see the wisdom in eliminating the article when there's a perfectly acceptable merge target. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christine Shin. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My Fake Husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable film, unsourced. Woogee (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for miserably failing WP:CRYSTAL. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to neutral per comment below by Lear's Fool, but may revert to delete. See how this goes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep per comments below by Morenooso, but article may need some cleanup, need more sources and the like. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I have to say weak delete for failing WP:COI and WP:RS. It can be improved, but that's my opinion for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As a Page Patroller I have seen plenty of articles nominated for both Speedy Delete and AFD only to survive because the Wikipedian community decides the article is worthy for inclusion regardless of being a COI. I have this article on my Watchlist. Believe me, I can sniff COI. I just tagged one if you look at my contribs. --Morenooso (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the original editor has a habit of removing afd tags. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article creator made that mistake as it is a new user. I caught the mistake and was in the process of writing it a good faith note but got over written by Woogee. Woogee also destroyed content (the link used for the reference). I'd like to see Woogee rescind the warning and let me write the good faith note. --Morenooso (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Newstoryteller (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Materialscientist. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article creator made that mistake as it is a new user. I caught the mistake and was in the process of writing it a good faith note but got over written by Woogee. Woogee also destroyed content (the link used for the reference). I'd like to see Woogee rescind the warning and let me write the good faith note. --Morenooso (talk) 06:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the original editor has a habit of removing afd tags. Woogee (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, as it does not contain unverifiable speculation about the future. This attests to the truth of the synopsis of the article, and there are three or four sources to be found on Google about the fellowship award, which means that everything in the article is referenced and hence verifiable. Simply being about a future project does not constitute a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NF and WP:N (and possibly WP:NFF, though its unclear if the film is finished and just unreleased, or what. The minor award and getting a fellowship (not that uncommon) does not make it notable enough for inclusion. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, making it unnotable regardless of its release status. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please review the article now. I found an international fact that support it won an award from the Korean Film Council. The article now has reliable sources that show it has new coverage beyond the United States and was completed (thus alleviating WP:NFF. --Morenooso (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, it seems highly likely that the creator, Newstoryteller, has some relation/connection to Christine Shin as entire edit history has revolved around making both her article and that of her few independent films, all with very non-neutral language and tone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel there is a relationship, please put a {{coi}} on the article, I have it on my Watchlist and am a pretty good Wiki Defender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 02:07, March 21, 2010
- Tagged her article as well as the one film not at AfD so far. Interestingly, her website promotes the Wikipedia article for her film Janie as "press coverage". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel there is a relationship, please put a {{coi}} on the article, I have it on my Watchlist and am a pretty good Wiki Defender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morenooso (talk • contribs) 02:07, March 21, 2010
- Keep - Article is a developing stub that has two independent references that confirm it was released, won an award and that its screenwriter received a fellowship as a result of her film. Morenooso (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A confirmation of release does not make it notable, and both "independent references" are the press releases of the award and fellowship, respectively. Neither constitutes significant coverage. And the screenwriter getting a fellowship is not an indication of notability at all for the film, or even her. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just added two independent references diff to Christine Shin for her prior work Janie. It appears that this screenwriter is an up-and-coming writer. --Morenooso (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...her school's newspaper is not an independent source, nor is a directory style listing from an agency that gave her, and many others, a grant. Neither establishes any notability for her at all. "up-and-coming" is unnotable. When she is there, then she might be notable, but as is, right now she isn't, nor, it appears, are any of her films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (and then redirect) to Christine Shin. I agree with Collectonian that the movie itself does not have broad enough coverage in independent sources to warrant a separate article. However, this is well referenced content, and would not be out of place as a section of Christine Shin's article. The director's notability is a separate question to that of this article, and for the purposes of this AfD, we should consider this article in isolation. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Christine Shin as has been pointed out, while the film does not quite yet have enough to show notability, the director's article might benefit from sourcing toward possible notability... but the director's article is a different argument. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Christine Shin article has now been blanked with a {{copyvio}} tag. Author is an SPA who creates only Christine Shin-related articles. I suspect that with all of the COI, there will be more Wikipedia resources devoted to this than it is worth. Racepacket (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyvio is being addressed through regular editing at Talk:Christine Shin/Temp, as the subject meets WP:ANYBIO through her awards and nominations...Cine Golden Eagle Award, an Audience Award for 'Best Short Film' at Dances With Films Film Festival, and a Gold Remi at WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. Additional assistance is always welcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence Goodall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per BLP one event. To explain:
- The subject is only known for one event: he was accused of sexual assault by two people and convicted of indecent assault in relation to one of them, effectively for having homosexual sex irrespective of consent. He was covered in a second story, in 2008, but in this story Goodall was only a peripheral player - his case was covered in relation to George Pell's handling of sexual abuse allegations and Pell's response, but the coverage was firmly about Pell, and related to the previously mentioned event.
- Second, I've looked for anything with which to balance the article, but it's just not there. He has only ever been in the news due to the one case (either directly or peripherally).
Bilby (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A classic WP:BLP1E. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have listed this article for rescue. I have also added more EL's. SilverserenC 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is there to rescue? No-one is arguing this isn't sourced well enough. Its a BLP1E issue. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To see if anyone else in the Squadron can find sources other than about this event. SilverserenC 19:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is the sort of thing that BLP1E was designed for. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OverThrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:COI. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the imdb link is bogus. I can find no reliable sources. Woogee (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. YouTube-only film; article created by single-purpose account. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Film has no sourcable notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. No evidence of notability in any sense. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tactics of early video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article violates WP:NOT in two ways, first by being a loosely associated collection of topics and second by consisting entirely of game guide material. Indrian (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can be improved, but in its current state I'd say either delete per WP:NOTHOWTO or redirect to Gameplay. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 08:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essentially a game guide. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, was this AfD done right? Where are the categories? Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stage Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Must ba a game made up in one day Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only real finds i have found on this subject on Google are "stage balls" for juggling. Not the topic you are describing so i would assume it might not be note worthy enough. Evenios (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete per WP:MADEUP (man, I wish there was a speedy criterion for games). Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no references or sources, seems made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 08:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as unverifiable. I can find no sources to verify any of the information contained in this article, nor the existence of the game. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 11:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Delete. Made up in one day. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian fantasy metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to be a notable genre Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, although it isn't as widespread as you would like, this genre is ever-growing in my area. Please don't delete my page. I am trying all means by which to inform anyone who might be interested or curious about this genre of music.Cbusch2010 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it fails WP:V, WP:RS and possily WP:OR, if you fix these problem, the article might be saved from deletion. Also commenting on the fact that Google has only 11 hits, and only a few o the actual genre, a few are false positives. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this seems to be obscure genre at best. Google's only reference seems to be the article itself. Evenios (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was merely trying to inform people about my genre of music. Very unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbusch2010 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not Wikipedia's purpose, see all the links above for details. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a few of the opinions expressed above by Cbusch2010 (talk · contribs) and Evenios (talk · contribs) look like !votes, but don't have a bolded recommendation (eg Keep, Delete, Merge etc.) this makes the discussion a little difficult to follow, so it may be worth those editors adding such recommendations in accordance with the AfD discussion guidelines. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at this point, but if any of the information in this article can be verified, I would probably shift to a Merge !vote (moving any referenced information to Christian Metal). My primary difficulty with this article is not a lack of notability, but the lack of references. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This genre originated in Sabetha, Kansas around the year 2010. Clearly a WP:MADEUP genre, as an equivalent secular genre doesn't exist. Nate • (chatter) 22:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the usual outcomes for brand new genres of music. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electrocrunk. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't exist much information on the internet yet due to the premature "underground" state it resides in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbusch2010 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's fine, but (to quote the first sentence of the verifiability policy) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." A subject needs to be verifiable to warrant inclusion. If, in the future, this genre receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources, please feel free to re-add it, but until then it can't be included. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Isabel Conner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Child actress with one role, at age 8. No additional roles at IMDB. Web search only leads to mentions of her name in role, nothing of significance. Does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:ENT. (This is a recreation of the page- I believe the previous page was PROD.) Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N person with only one IMDB role must not be notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wanda latoot (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nello Gello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Article states he is a singer AND video game developer. I cannot find reliable sources for either endeavor. Clubmarx (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. I can find nothing about this person outside of blogs and message board "profile pages". Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For me Nello Gello is not notable User:Lucifero4
- Delete - No significant coverage from any reliable source to back it up. Also a slight possibility of WP:COI here, as the creator's username coincides with the picture in the bio. Author also has only one other edit in any other article, see (see Special:Contributions/Greenmean1213) --Teancum (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Reach Out to the Truth 00:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agape World Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources found to establish notability of a video game. (sample Google News search) No reliable sources to establish notability of a church, either. tedder (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult to judge -- It seems to be an Internet church. With no indication of membership, it is very difficult to determine whether it is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The organization is significantly unique to merit an article. It works in a field with minimal reporting, hence the lack of sources Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - may be rescued, see WP:BEFORE. The links could be used as sources. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less sure now that the links are not as useful as I'd thought. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has lots of external links. Some are probably reliable sources that can be converted to references with footnotes. Dew Kane (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on COI. Appears to be a strong conflict of interest here, per these edits by Geoff Plourde, and per User:Pastor Bob Shoemaker "also known as EarthTrex" being the primary editor of the article, as well as the founder of the internet church. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Having actually examined all the links, only 1 had anything to do with AWF. This article has 0 sources available currently, or in google news/scholar/books. I'm usually an inclusionist/mergist, but this article's topic has no current notability. -- Quiddity (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable and I most likely just an attempt to advertise various sites. Dream Focus 11:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is difficult to justify retaining this article, because the only source left is the organization website. Quiddity is right, no current notability. No coverage of the organization in the press or elsewhere, and I did look. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The "sources" have been shown to be deficient. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boots Collagenese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Has been tagged since December 2008 and still nothing more than a sentence. Cloudbound (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- 'delete per WP:SPAM/ADVERT. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator due to article repair and source improvements. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelutviaq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure whether this is a good-faith error or an outright hoax; the source is linked to Google Books but is empty there, so I can't check it. However, the claim that it's played by the "Inuit peoples of Nelson Island, British Columbia" is definitely offside; the island is only just barely removed from being part of Metro Vancouver, so there most certainly aren't any Inuit around there. If this really does exist as a real Inuit instrument, then I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if somebody can properly source where it really belongs geographically — but if a real source doesn't pan out, delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have listed this article for rescue. SilverserenC 00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I found a source that does verify the claim. Reyk YO! 07:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that a source has been found, but the Nelson Island stuff sounds like nonsense and should be removed -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The location was probably then in the Northwest Territories and today in Nunavut. Many locations in Nunavut have been renamed, so the place known as Nelson Island may well have a different name today. The Atlas of Canada at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/search/search_results?expression=Nelson+Island&image2.x=0&image2.y=0 lists three other places named Nelson Island, but none in Nunavut. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As it does appear to exist, even though little has been located so far. As for "Nelson island", I think it actually is supposed to be Nelson Island (Alaska). See book snippet [19] identifying Walcott as doing field work on that Nelson Island, and, "In l97l Walcott collected Nelson Island songs, filling twenty-four reels of recording tape, copies of which he deposited with the Eskimo Language Workshop." That 1971 work may well be "Walcott, Ronald 1971: Mimeographed field notes from Nelson Island. Eskimo Language Workshop, University of Alaska."--Milowent (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, [20] another source snippet from Google says "Kelutviaq. A single-string fiddle used by the Inuit people of south-west Alaska and Nelson Island."--Milowent (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The likely genesis of this instrument is probably related to this[21], but a subject matter expert would be helpful here!--Milowent (talk) 03:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're most likely right, see also the examples of tautirut and Apache fiddle, other First Nations instruments which were probably derived from fiddles brought by early Europeans. In any case, I hope we've established that the kelutviaq is a real instrument. I apologise for the weirdness about the location of Nelson Island, but the original reference I found did indeed imply that it was in British Columbia, which I also thought sounded a bit "off". MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kosiv source also says "Alaskan Inuit", so it's rather clear. I think the source that talked about British Columbia just got their places mixed up. :P SilverserenC 20:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, everyone. I figured that the Alaska island was a possibility, but couldn't find a source on the web to clarify. Consider the nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.