Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a bad faith nomination. The very first edits in Special:Contributions/Conspiracy Smasher were to create this nomination, and subsequent edits, including the nomination of Alex Jones (radio) (AfD discussion) for deletion have revealed that this person is here merely to disrupt and to provoke on a contentious issue. I am closing this and the other AFD discussion, and have revoked the account's editing privileges indefinitely. We can do without this. Uncle G (talk) 05:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Started by POV pushers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Conspiracy Smasher (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User's first edit Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a well-sourced article. Dekisugi (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete under WP:SOAP. Also impossible to keep NPOV with this kind of hate article, but that is a side issue. Pharmboy (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - For reasons stated on six previous AfDs; article is not a soapbox, it consists of verifable facts. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. While it may make for unpleasant reading for some, it's not a soapbox. It's a well-sourced article that people can read and find helpful in forming their opinions. I'm not asking people to either agree nor disagree with it. Just read it. And, by the way, describing it as a "hate article" says all too much about the closed minds out there. Whatever happened to the 1st Amendment? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the 1st amendment only applies if I agree with you? Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Pharmboy, the 1st Amendment means that you have the right to express yourself. Without others, who don't like what you have in mind, trying to shut you up by throwing around unhelpful ill-considered phrases such as "hate article". Clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfectly. You are trying to shut me up because I see the article as hateful, and clearly stated that this can't be considered a reason to delete AFTER I stated my policy reasons for voting delete. Really, talking down to me isn't the solution, we just have different opinions and you just can't let that be. Move on, I'm much too old for this. Pharmboy (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Pharmboy, the 1st Amendment means that you have the right to express yourself. Without others, who don't like what you have in mind, trying to shut you up by throwing around unhelpful ill-considered phrases such as "hate article". Clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the 1st amendment only applies if I agree with you? Pharmboy (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - what has changed since the six previous Afds? Well. take a good look and you will find that the references are now vastly improved, and the content has been significantly expanded upon and improved since the last afd. The content references what is now a considerable body of academic and human rights literature consisting of either references to descriptions of U.S. state terrorism or in-depth examinations supporting the hypothesis. See the references section which includes contributions from professors from Yale, Princeton, MIT, Columbia and Hong Kong University, among others. If you require more evidence that this is a serious scholarly concern, constituting a significant alternative discourse, albeit not representative of the mainstream, then I would be happy to provide a long long long list of academic references. BernardL (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per others. Article seems well-sourced and neutral. Rray (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced, notable subject, and title is NPOV. Joshdboz (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It doesn't matter that it was started by POV pushers, the great thing about a Wiki is that you can correct errors. 75.175.30.154 (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As was concluded in previous AFDs. the article is about a notable topic and has multiple references from reliable and independent sources, satisfying WP:N. It seems fairly neutral and NPOV. The rest is a content dispute, and not a topic for AFD. This is not to say I agree with everything it says, but that is a matter for editing, not deletion. Edison (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given that it is well sourced and the topic is notable. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a list format While no doubt containing factual info, the whole article is impossible to read, and has no structure or flow. It needs to be changed into a list, with links to the articles where most of the content is already duplicated, or to new articles such as allegations regarding El Salvador. The whole thing is an insult to proper style and readability, and serves no purpose as is.MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep, obviously a notable subject, contains reliable sources out the wazooty. It's tagged for PoV already; PoV seems to be the only problem I can see with it, and that alone is not a reason to delete. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOWBALL --Strothra (talk) 03:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article has its POV problems, it's reliably sourced. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Sourced and notable User Doe ☻T ☼C 04:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per others; article has reliable references. No evidence of use as a soapbox. KurtRaschke (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability and all that jazz. We don't need to list every single minutiae of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' universe. Relevant aspects of the series can be merged into the main article or the characters article. We have wikias for information like this. I (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn as per WP:CRUFT also unreferenced etc. Sting_au Talk 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft, not sure how notability is nom. Pharmboy (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is neither relavent nor important, and it does not belong in an encyclopedia. If people feel they really need to know this information, then this article should just be merged with another article on a similar subject. Skittlesrgood4u (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can't remember the last time I've laughed out loud at an AFD title, but this is one for the memory banks. RFerreira (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --RedShiftPA (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This list is not that useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to David Cohen. The non-existence of sourcing and poor tone make it a bad idea to keep this article around at the moment, and the notability concerns are quite real. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 14:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Denis P. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)--
Non notable biography; mostly unverifiable, looks like a vanity listing, similar articles about several members of the same family RedShiftPA (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Won election for 10 year term as judge for starters, which always passed on wikipedia. The article needs citations and lots of work, but I can't see for the life of me WHY you would AFD him for "notability". I found plenty of published cases by him by googling ' judge "Denis P. Cohen" ', and this pushes the limits of wp:agf. Pharmboy (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you have added the other two, I can't help but to see they are all 3 notable. I am not sure why you don't think elected officials are not notable, and I think her activities and associations past muster as well. I still say speedy keep and be done. Pharmboy (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete By your standard, a traffic court judge in Nome, Alaska is notable. Notability is established by being the subject of non-trivial, reliable and independent sources. Having an opinion released on the internet is none of those things. It merely establishes that he is a judge. An article about his more notable father and brother that mentions his existence as a judge does not constitute a source of which he is the subject. Full disclosure: I originally prodded the article and wished that the nom had contacted me prior to the AFD. Montco (talk) 00:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the other two, David Cohen is quite notable in Philly and I could find sources easily so keep on that. Florence Cohen was never elected to anything so she doesn't even have that to fall back on. Weak delete as a figure in Philadelphia who could have some notability if sources were provided.Montco (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say winning a state or fed election is automatically noteworthy, city or county election for higher office (sherriff, mayor) is likely as well. That seems the purpose of an encyclopedia, particularly since wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. As for her, I can see where that is borderline. Pharmboy (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the other two, David Cohen is quite notable in Philly and I could find sources easily so keep on that. Florence Cohen was never elected to anything so she doesn't even have that to fall back on. Weak delete as a figure in Philadelphia who could have some notability if sources were provided.Montco (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment All three are up for delete here, which I think is a terrible mistake, to lump them together. Are you saying delete all 3? Pharmboy (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The main driving force behind this article is User:Zulitz. His/her endeavours [1] have brought to the attention of the wider world the activities of (takes deep breath) Mark B. Cohen, David Cohen, Florence Cohen, Mark J. Cohen as well as the subject here, Denis P. Cohen. As early as last February, Montco was at Zulitz' talk page imploring, probably close to tears of exasperation, that "I must insist on some sources for this shrine to Rep. Cohen" [2]. I can only ask here - Zulitz, do you have any more up your sleeve that you're keeping from us? Perhaps a Zebediah T. Cohen? The mysterious Russian cousin Igor M. Cohen? The mad step-aunt locked in the attic, Gwendoline Audrey P. Cohen? Your audience eagerly waits for the magician to reveal his hand. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT It really doesn't matter if he is family or friend if the article meets policy, and you are violating wp:agf. You can make a claim of COI on the pages if you think that is the issue. But attacking him (and the articles were decently written) simply because he is adding people that are ARGUABLY notable is not wp:civil, particularly since he is not participating in the conversation. In other words, don't be a dick. Argue in good faith over content, not about the author. Pharmboy (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now now, Pharmboy. I was violating nothing, other than the author's pride. I have attacked nobody, but, hopefully, managed to raise a smile among those who have read my remarks. I would be grateful if you would refrain from referring to me as a "dick", simply because I draw attention to a thread among the author's contributions. Have I made myself clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sole contribution to the conversation has been personal criticism of the author. Yes, that is pretty clear. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said to somebody else on your own talk page (I'll leave the grammatical errors in for purposes of accuracy in quotation) "You are reading entirely too much "personal" in this. I don't know you, it can't be personal. Continuing to think was personal is a waste of your time, please don't make it a waste of mine. Please look around and read some of the basic policies here, and see how others handle issues. A reply is not necessary." Other than grammatical accuracy, I couldn't have put it better myself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not taking it personal as you didn't attack me. You are attacking the author of the article on a person basis, making fun of his contributions, and he is not here to defend his actions. That is why I linked the "dont be a dick" article, as that IS being a dick. You have not made a single vote on the subject at hand or said anything constructive about whether the articles should be deleted or kept, you just waltz in and start smarting off about the author. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, then don't bother. Pharmboy (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Pharmboy, (nomen est omen), I hardly think that calling people "a dick" is anything constructive, is it? I'm of the opinion that my contributions have been highly beneficial to both the tone of the debate and its eventual resolution. Over to you. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not taking it personal as you didn't attack me. You are attacking the author of the article on a person basis, making fun of his contributions, and he is not here to defend his actions. That is why I linked the "dont be a dick" article, as that IS being a dick. You have not made a single vote on the subject at hand or said anything constructive about whether the articles should be deleted or kept, you just waltz in and start smarting off about the author. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the conversation, then don't bother. Pharmboy (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said to somebody else on your own talk page (I'll leave the grammatical errors in for purposes of accuracy in quotation) "You are reading entirely too much "personal" in this. I don't know you, it can't be personal. Continuing to think was personal is a waste of your time, please don't make it a waste of mine. Please look around and read some of the basic policies here, and see how others handle issues. A reply is not necessary." Other than grammatical accuracy, I couldn't have put it better myself. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sole contribution to the conversation has been personal criticism of the author. Yes, that is pretty clear. Pharmboy (talk) 00:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I may have been too hasty in nominating these articles together. I will try to untangle this.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence to suggest that this judge satisfies WP:N or WP:BIO. In places it reads like someone's holiday letter rather than an encyclopedia article (His sister has 3 kids and works in a medical office, he was elected president of the Overbrook Farms Club, etc). No references. (edited)Edison (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis article was just started last month, and it needs more work. Judge Cohen is a Democrat appointed to the bench to a major trial court by Governor Tom Ridge and confirmed by the Republican-controlled state senate in time for him to be sworn in to office in December, 2000. He was then elected citywide with the support of both the Democratic and Republican parties in 2001. Now beginning his 8th year on the Common Pleas Court in a city of almost 1.5 million people, he is certainly a notable public figure. He notabiltiy is enhanced by the fact that he served under three District Attorneys who then won statewide office, U.S.Senator Arlen Specter, Governor Ed Rendell, and Pennsylvania Chief Justice (effective January 1, 2008) Ron Castille. User:Zulitz, 11:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Zulitz wrote and did most of the editing for this article --RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perhaps the subject is notable, but there is little evidence of notability from the article. Tone sounds like a family tree listings. Second comments by[[[User:Edison|Edison]].
- Delete per WP:BIO. Local trial court judges are not inherently notable. Note that Denis P. Cohen is just one of 93 judges in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. [3] Looking at Category:Pennsylvania state court judges, one will find that most of the Pennsylvania state court judges who have Wikipedia articles are those who also served in the U.S. Congress or as Federal judges -- with very few who only served as local trial court judges. As a means of comparison, we have an article about Judge Lance Ito but not for most (if any) of his colleagues in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County who have their chambers in the same building. Why not? Because he is notable per WP:BIO, and they generally aren't. If Denis Cohen presides over a nationally publicized trial, then it might be appropriate to have an article about him, but I don't see anything like that here. Finally, working for famous bosses does not make an employee inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office employs "600 lawyers, detectives and support staff" [4], so being an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia is not a rare status either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Where is the deletion rationale provided by the nominator? I do not see one. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale was restored. Looks like it was accidentally deleted.--RedShiftPA (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a stub of a reasonably notable sitting judge of several years. I deleted all the cruft and the libelous content. Why would such material be libel, you ask? A judge is prohibited by ABA Model Rules from serving as a fiduciary for non-bar-association charities. To allege that he "deeply involved" in charity work is to invite his disbarment from the bench. Even if true, WP should not be involved in starting a proceeding before a judicial conduct commission. It looks much better now. I'm sure all of it can be verified with a simple Google search. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By what standard is he "reasonably notable"? WP:BIO says that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I suspect that the article was not intended to be libelous, due to its otherwise hagiographic content. More likely, the civic activities described either took place before the subject became a judge or were of the kind that judges are allowed to participate in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By what standard is he "reasonably notable"? WP:BIO says that "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Someone should really add a section on how he ran over redshiftpa's dog. Mykej (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:17, December 23, 2007
- Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Nominated to AfD on behalf of User:AWDRacer, who is not familiar with the process, I declined the original speedy because of the inherent difficulty in gaging assertions of importance on a poet, especially if they operate outside the regions better covered by Internet. — Coren (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete added by — Coren (talk) as a hand for AWDRacer Thanks to Coren's help, I am nominating the Abdul Hamid (Manipuri Poet) article as an article worth deleting. The following is an exact replica of what can be found on the discussion page and this clearly illustrates my thoughts and feelings over what I think is a fake article:
Aeja1370 along with other IPs at his disposal has been consistently reviving this exact article back from what could've been dead. If speedy deletion tags are added, they are removed by him/her or any number of his sockpuppet accounts.
I have previously flagged this article for speedy deletion and now I've decided to flag it for spamming/advertisement. A simple Google search will reveal that none of the important details that distinctively indicate that the person in this article exist; no such person on Google with that name with that birthyear and place WHO has written a book titled "Sakyeng Mingsenda (The Mirror) in 2004. In fact, there's absolutely NO indication that such a person even exists despite the fact that the original author(s) claim he is "dearer to the literary world". It seems important for the author that this article be kept alive for no known exterior reason for a "famous" person who cannot be found on a quick Google search. If one had time, they will conclusively argue that this article could be intended to make a mockery out of Wikipedia.
I have written some notes to whom I believe are administrators but they have done nothing about it as of yet. AWDRacer (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - as is article fails WP:BLP. I say weak delete because as per Coren's concern I feel this article would have benefited from input from editors with access to local sources. The article is a biography and according to policy should cite sources. Sting_au Talk 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand that it's an apparent biography of a person, if the so-called biography has no sources whatsoever, any Average joe can place erroneous, misleading, and possibly libellous information on pages. At the same time, this Joe can exaggerate his personal exploits, downplay or deny or withhold his humiliating points. This Joe can also make himself to be much bigger than he really is; while he may be working as a menial job at a firm at the day time, he can write himself as a leading figure of authority who has accomplished much, all with the luxury of having no sources. These claims, thus, must not be accepted if there are no sources. For all we know, the original author of this article could be writing an article about himself.
If you think an article like this should be allowed, how would you feel if I decided to write an article about you or myself as a person using nothing but baseless claims? In that I could describe myself as a genius; the next Einstein, or a charismatic military leader; the next Napoleon Bonaparte, while I describe you as a lowly henchmen who follows orders, gets humiliated in public before shortly being exiled from the country. I can do that because these are the baseless claims I am talking about with absolutely no evidence of truth within it. While all this information is clearly toward my benefit, I believe Wikipedia has no room for something like this. Once there is evidence that disregards or dismisses that information, I have absolutely nothing to show for it. My concern is that people use Wikipedia to spread misinformation to gain respect which normally would not have been deserved. AWDRacer (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand that it's an apparent biography of a person, if the so-called biography has no sources whatsoever, any Average joe can place erroneous, misleading, and possibly libellous information on pages. At the same time, this Joe can exaggerate his personal exploits, downplay or deny or withhold his humiliating points. This Joe can also make himself to be much bigger than he really is; while he may be working as a menial job at a firm at the day time, he can write himself as a leading figure of authority who has accomplished much, all with the luxury of having no sources. These claims, thus, must not be accepted if there are no sources. For all we know, the original author of this article could be writing an article about himself.
- Delete fails wp:bio with no WP:RS and no way to wp:verify. Pharmboy (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 16:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability, or verify any of the article content. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable COI; no sources; notability not established; 788 google hits for "dj proper" OSbornarfcontributionatoration 22:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no evidence at all of notability. He's just some guy. andy (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BLP no independent reliable sources referenced - so fails WP:V. MySpace is not a good source. Sting_au Talk 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who? Someone needs to start an article called DJ Pharmboy for me if this stays ;) Pharmboy (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable. — Wenli (reply here) 00:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no source for notability. -Lemonflash(O_o) 00:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, quite literally fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:76.79.240.23 Decided to blank this page for some reason, and wanted others to know without having to look up history. He contributed to the article previously. Reverted, gave warning on user page. Pharmboy (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- User:76.79.240.23 made a comment at the top of this page. I've reverted and copied his comment below and given advice/warning on his talk page. andy (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "this is not fair. dj proper is a notable dj and there is several reliable sources to prove it. he is a producer of offical remixes for black eyed peas/nas and has done established work ( so if you wanna debate it then please explain it to the black eyed peas who had him at their studio with will.i.am and dj motiv8 to produce this song) or go to the many flyers of his production with many platnium artist with him opening and personal working with them .please refer to his website http://djproper.com or to the fact he is sponsered by several large companies for their equipment like EMU<RANE<propellerhead software). he makes a living doing his music and has many flyers,songs, and associations to keep this page outside of myspace...he has a over 10 years of established work ,websites, and it would not be fair to erase this page. so if you wanna erase this page your wrong..because there should be no debate over the work..if you say its not notable to produce music for a platnium band with them at their studio and get paid for it or work 100's of shows with the people listed....then you are just messed up or have no real facts to support your agruement because the work is offical the shows are real and the history is there...so i can prove the realness of the page with offical songs,flyers, and proof of payment for shows and production....so please consider that it be unfair to erase this page"
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice to re-creation as a redirect, which I will leave to subsequent editors. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of University of Michigan head football coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is covered here. Separate article is not needed. michfan2123 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete page and Redirect to here. Mh29255 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. Already covered properly in Category:Michigan Wolverines football coaches and Template:WolverinesCoach as far as list form goes, and as already stated, the exact same material (that provides more at-a-glance info) is on the Michigan Wolverines football page. I would have nothing against this page existing if it needs to be split off the main article for size reasons anytime in the future. Redirecting for now is acceptable, as this is a likely search term. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless list. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as a likely search term Whpq (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you could do it either way, the only reason I created a separate article was because some other schools have them Tigersfan1992 (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self referencing Fancruft, with no context, real-world content or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk pantheon, which is in desperate need of cleanup. Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirectinto List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. BOZ (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- I'd like to change my vote to Keep or Merge per Robbstrd below. BOZ (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. If Gavin was truly interested in "cleaning up" these articles, he'd work to improve them, rather than tagging and nominating them for deletion. Then again, perhaps he's more interested in being a dick. Prove us wrong, Gavin--put some effort into making something better for once.--Robbstrd (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your frustration, but I don't think we need to descend into name-calling. We should assume good faith about Gavin's motivations. Or, failing that, we should at least address the concerns raised instead of attacking the nominator. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go here, I think you'll get a better understanding of the situation. It isn't so much that Gavin tags & nominates articles for deletion, but that he does it at a rate that no one can keep up with (not to mention that he frequently fails to read the articles & so mistags them). He seems to think Wikipedia is on a time table, which it isn't. Many times he's been asked to take a break so those of us interested in these articles can take the time to review & improve them, but no such luck. It's easy to tag content--if Gavin actually took the time to create/improve some content, many of us would have a more favorable view of him.--Robbstrd (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gavin is doing great things here by helping clean up Wikipedia. He should be commended for his actions with the biggest possible barnstar Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go here, I think you'll get a better understanding of the situation. It isn't so much that Gavin tags & nominates articles for deletion, but that he does it at a rate that no one can keep up with (not to mention that he frequently fails to read the articles & so mistags them). He seems to think Wikipedia is on a time table, which it isn't. Many times he's been asked to take a break so those of us interested in these articles can take the time to review & improve them, but no such luck. It's easy to tag content--if Gavin actually took the time to create/improve some content, many of us would have a more favorable view of him.--Robbstrd (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your frustration, but I don't think we need to descend into name-calling. We should assume good faith about Gavin's motivations. Or, failing that, we should at least address the concerns raised instead of attacking the nominator. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect - into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities as per BOZ. I am sure I could find enough information to keep this alive as it's own article it really belongs in the list, which itself should be expanded. Plus Gavin has no interest in improving articles, only deleting them. Otherwise he would have contributed something, which he has not. Web Warlock (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Per Robbstrd, whose comments today are particularly insightful. :) Rray (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article has no mention of real world notability. Although Gavin.collins may not be improving articles, he is improving Wikipedia by nominating pages like this for deletion. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment it is mentioned as being one of the 30 best adventures in *this* world. And Improving? I seriously doubt it. Web Warlock (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without sources, what you say is unverified. We can delete this page, and you can put it back when you find sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I hate to say it but no-one who has argued 'keep' has proved that it's notable at all. Are the sources WP:RS and in-depth ones about this being in particular? If so, explain and mention them in this AfD for me please. If things don't belong in the wiki it's not wrong to send them to AfD. You might be annoyed because a lot of people don't understand what passes for notability criteria when it comes to sci-fi, games etc. You need to explain it to me, cos I'm a girl and not into these things.:)Merkinsmum 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Greyhawk deities. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is clearly not notable in the real world. Pilotbob (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per WebWarlock. Edward321 (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per GentlemanGhost. This is pretty obscure. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is pretty obscure. Fails WP:N and others. --Jack Merridew 10:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete extremely obscure. Even merging with Myconid entry seems pointless as every monster created for D&D does NOT need its own article. That is what the Monster Manuals are sold for, to get the details on specific monsters. Wikipedia should not remove the need for purchasing those books. For those things in the SRD/OGL then they should be looked up on the appropriate internet sites for those things. I do not feel the entire SRD should be replicated on Wikipedia. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is the first sensible comment written by a RPG expert that made any sense about these articles. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So he's an expert because he agrees with you, while everyone else is a fanatic? BOZ (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what I want to know is if he understands why this is obscure, but Tiamat isn't. They are light-years apart, but a number of folks (who don't appear to know much about the subject) don't understand the difference. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to Distributed Proofreaders#DP Europe - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Distributed Proofreaders Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- No assertion of notability made. Advertising. will381796 (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect into Distributed Proofreaders#DP Europe. --A. B. (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit confused as to how this could be considered advertising. Everything stated in the (admittedly rather small) article was factual, and I made no attempt to encourage people to visit or join. Also, DP Europe is a separate entity from the original DP, both in its mission and in its legal status. Combining it with the main DP article implies that it is part of DP, when it is not. If the issue is that there is not enough information, then please mark it as a stub, but don't delete it. If it needs to be "notable" then please explain what needs to be added. Thank you. Dylan38 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect as above. Separate articles for subsidiary entities are discouraged per WP:ORG. Dylan38: It's advertising if it is just here to give the organization a presence, without citing reliable and independent sources to demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not a "subsidiary entity" as is explained in the article and by Dylan38, so merging is not appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added an independent reference to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Distributed Proofreaders#DP Europe. The improvements/citations made to this article will be welcome in that article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why merge into an article on a separate organisation? Distributed Proofreaders Europe is not part of Distributed Proofreaders, as is explained in the article and in this AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Well, Distributed Proofreaders Canada is a redirect to the main DP article, and in general, I just don't see how this European satellite organization is notable independantly of DP itself. Thus, it should be covered in the context of the main DP article. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:17, December 23, 2007
Looks like it fails WP:MUSIC, and is a non-notable band. I couldn't find any reputable third-party sources from searching Google. Also I didn't want to try to speedy, because the "Notable mentions" section looks like an attempt to demonstrate notability. FrankTobia (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, lots of weak claims (listed a DEMO as their 'cd', jebus...), no sources, no verification, no notability. Pharmboy (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn fails WP:MUSIC. Sting_au Talk 01:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this not-notable band, one of many many many. --Lockley (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no proper assertion of notability, and fails WP:MUSIC. Could also some more sources, that are reliable. Rt. 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN band. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007
Non-notable offshoot of Starwars, sourced to a wiki. AvruchTalk 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No real-world notability. It belongs on the Star Wars wiki where it came from, not in Wikipedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to University of North Carolina, his current place of employment. Possibly notable but the very poor state of this article means that leaving it as it is would be a bad idea. Any future article will need way better sourcing. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable college athlete and trainer. "In 1999 Sports Illustrated dubbed him the 42nd best athlete to ever come out of Vermont." That shouldn't be enough to get one into a general reference encyclopedia. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO no reliable sources referenced. Sting_au Talk 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The (weakly) asserted notability is not sufficient to meet WP:BIO. Maralia (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but dear God, do something more than dump the guy's resume on here. I don't have time to mess with it, but did a quick search on Google and discovered at minimum that Mr. O a) was a record-breaking Ivy League athlete and b) is a published (author? subject matter expert?) on head trauma injury. Will send a note asking for revision by original author, who I HOPE is not Scott Oliaro himself (ahem, WP:COI) ΨνPsinu 21:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Psiun, respect, but I'm not convinced Mr. Olario meets notability. The Google 'author' thing appears to refer to papers rather than books. The '42nd-best-athlete' phrase unfortunately sounds like a joke. --Lockley (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it does appear that he was a significant college athlete. There is a NY Times article about his record breaking performance. There are also a couple of articles behind pay-to-view walls from the Boston Globe and LA Times. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wikified the article somewhat and tried to add the references, but it still needs some cleanup. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I had to think about this one for a while. He broke one record, and that was pretty much it for him. Is a single-game Ivy League record notable? If it was an SEC record I'd say yeah, but a Division I-AA record I can't say so. Does being a head athletic trainer make him notable, probably not. The two combined? Maybe, it's tough to say. It's a tough call though, I can see both sides of it. I'm fine with it being closed either way. Wizardman 18:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007
- Land of Hypocrisy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Apparently non-notable book, and reads like ad copy. — Coren (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication that this book is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to find any reviews to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, g12 copyright violation. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wyong Golf Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Appears to have been created entirely for promotional purposes, and does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, major copyvio issues and whatever is left is their website repackaged for Wikipedia: blatant advertising. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete : blatant advertising/spam. Mh29255 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn after additional sourcing added to article. Nominator requests early close. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Fails the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. Not at all happy about the copyvio status of this article either - see discussion page - we do not normally simply copy wholesale, even with permission. Springnuts (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, article now well sourced. Springnuts (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As this artists is still active and has releases spanning 15 years and connections to Mojo Nixon & Jello Biafra, Fish Karma does meet the General notability guideline in WP:N and the specifics in WP:MUSIC. I am satisfied with the copyvio status as the material was originally written by this user and is used here with permission.Powerofshark (talk) 22:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO per WP:SOURCES.Sting_au Talk 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I haven't decided yet if I think it's salvageable. It relies for sourcing primarily on the website of the record label that handles the artist, which violates WP:V. The notability guidelines require objective evidence. The individual may have two albums on notable independent labels, which would meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Alternative Tentacles Records qualifies. I'm not sure about Deep Shag Records, since it seems to pin its notability at least in part on this (and Harlan Ellison). The other two artists wikilinked within the label site are not helpful, since one of those sources back merely to the label and the other leads to a disambig page which does not seem to contain the band referenced. I'm not convinced of the notability of Deep Shag Records, since WP:MUSIC indicates that a major indie label has been around more than a few years (check) and has "a roster of performers, many of which are notable" (not that the article indicates). The individual does seem to have local notability (See here and this Tuscon paper indicates that "Fish Karma has still had an illustrious career, at least here in the Old Pueblo."), but I haven't been able to find anything beyond local coverage, coverage by the record labels and directory style listings. I look forward to seeing if others have more luck, which may help me make up my mind. *In the interests of full disclosure, I have to reveal that I'm currently leaning "delete". :))--Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need a little push ;-) I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I can understand how the mere promise of reliable references is enough to save an article from speedy delete, but this is an AfD discussion. Shouldn't the article show reliable sources to meet WP:BIO?Sting_au Talk 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you make a good point. :D I'll be watching the discussion to see if anybody turns up to whip out reliable sourcing. Sometimes there are dramatic "ta da" moments of 12-page biographies buried in the New York Times, but not that often. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need a little push ;-) I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia. I can understand how the mere promise of reliable references is enough to save an article from speedy delete, but this is an AfD discussion. Shouldn't the article show reliable sources to meet WP:BIO?Sting_au Talk 02:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable artist/band. Passes WP:MUSIC with 5 albums, at least some on recognized labels.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've changed my vote as I'm now happy that the article has been reliably sourced. Sting_au Talk 07:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has now been sourced to show notability of this artist. Well done to those involved. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007
Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. A Google search [5] turned up exactly three results, none of which referenced any of the little information mentioned in the article. SimpleParadox 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless actual verifiable sources can be produced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP article subject not verified. Sting_au Talk 21:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). — Satori Son 16:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:18, December 23, 2007
- Northern Line (City branch) Thames crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete OK the London Underground is notable; we have articles for many of its stations, but is each stretch of track also worthy of an article? There is a line, this has crossed it. (lame puns intended). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn see WP:NOTE. Sting_au Talk 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This crossing is an old and deep tunnel, the article's content copies an entry from Crossings of the River Thames article, and I found very little else to say about it that isn't already there or in the Northern line article. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Theistic Satanism --JForget 01:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Devil Worshipping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Author removed PROD tag, so here we are. This essay is entirely original research so I redirected it to Theistic Satanism. Author reverted the redirect and added more original research. —Travistalk 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I chose to redirect to Theistic Satanism rather than Satanism because similar redirect Devil worship points to the former. —Travistalk 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and redirect to Theistic Satanism. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOR then redirect to Satanism. Sting_au Talk 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Useful as a redirect, but no more. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research; redirect to Theistic Satanism. — Wenli (reply here) 00:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Create redirect to Theistic Satanism. — Satori Son 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research. Pharmboy (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete OR. Not encyclopedic. Guldenat (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I confused it because there was something about that I can freely edit it. But there is no connection in the theistic satanism. In Satan Worshipping the Satanism is only sub category. It includes also all other sciences, Satanism is only studying the Satan thoughts. Satan Worshipping is to give to the Satan worship and love. Describe hes beauty and intelligence. So even the word Theistic is wrong and it have nothing to do about worshipping which is central part of our religion and most important. Satan -ism means Satans thoughts; Satan -worship means hes admiration and worship. Misa666 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is still original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. To salvage the article, please provide sources to establish the subject's notability. Of course, the need for sources goes beyond notability. Information added to an article must be verifiable, and facts included must be attributed to a reliable source. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect as per above. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and in the meantime, please stop linking to the page from other articles. This kind of half-baked conspiracy theory guff has no place in Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete+redirect. Wizardman 18:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article fails WP:MUSIC Sting_au Talk 20:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article fails WP:MUSIC in that the album and its tracks have not made any ratings or charts that would give them notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article meets WP:MUSIC as, to quote the guideline, "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles..." The band does meet notability guidelines in two areas. -- Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; may have sufficient notability. Automatic notability is normally only available to very notable bands— otherwise the album but be notable on its own. — Coren (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Salmonella Dub per WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs. — Satori Son 16:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per Satori Son. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:19, December 23, 2007
- Teamdata wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. Also may be a violation of WP:SPAM. SimpleParadox 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, this is pure SPAM and was probably a candidate for speedy deletion. Justin chat 06:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given the purchase price and that it now belongs to someone else it seems nn. Spammy as written but can't concur on speedy since it's potentially notable (in principle). JJL (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). — Satori Son 16:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was smoke. east.718 at 00:19, December 23, 2007
Where I come from, "shwag" is just another word for swag, or giveaway items used for promotions. I'm unfamiliar with this definition, and it seems that everyone who has read the Wikipedia article since February 2007 is similarly bemused. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the initiator of this request, the term is not verifiable by encyclopedia standards. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per WP:NEO as not verified. Sting_au Talk 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Relatively new term - only used in assoc with marijuana for about 40 years. Google turns up 40k hits when searched for with marijuana. Probably should be spelled with a c in front of the h. Mykej (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The newness of a term is not a factor, WP:V using reliable third party sources is. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- High Times Magazine price lists use the term(although with the c added as noted above). [[6]]. They're about as authoritative as it gets for MJ. Mykej (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think that leaves us with little more than a dictionary definition but I am interested to see what others may think. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that we need a section in the naming conventions saying that "common names" doesn't mean slang names. Looking in the The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (ISBN 041525938X) and The A-Z Encyclopedia of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (ISBN 158112404X), that's all that this is: another word for low-quality marijuana, nothing more. We already have articles covering the quality of marijuana. They are cannabis (drug) and cannabis (drug) cultivation. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A dictionary definition, lacking references. Edison (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, just another dictionary definition and WP:NOT a slang dictionary. RFerreira (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a term it is not WP:N. GtstrickyTalk or C 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to be much more than a dictionary definition. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Zainudin Bin Nordin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete one of five members of a constituency council, akin to a city council or county supervisor in the U.S., unsourced as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BLP article as is fails WP:V. Sting_au Talk 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think you misunderstand. He is a member of the Singapore national legislature, one of five representing his constituency. This is akin to a congressman in the USA, not a city councillor. I've improved the English in the article to make this clearer and added a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a politician in a national legislature. -- Whpq (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete; except for DGG's, the only keeps arguments put forth center on what else exists. — Coren (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of story elements from the articles on the Series of Unfortunate Events books. It is thus duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as is fails WP:SOURCE needs to get some reliable references in there. Sting_au Talk 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How is this page different from Places in Harry Potter? This page is one of five pages which contain information that used to be on a List of Locations in a Series of Unfortunate Events page, but was moved to Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Watercraft in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Geographic locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Business locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Houses in A Series of Unfortunate Events after a long discussion on numerous article talk pages and the Lemony Snicket Wikiproject talk page. If you insist this article be deleted, then what is holding you back from nominating all the aforementioned pages as well as Places in Harry Potter, List of Middle-earth rivers (referring to Lord of the Rings), and Realms of Arda (also referring to Lord of the Rings)? Seriously, I'm curious. Clamster 02:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to discuss how this page is different from all the other articles you mention. This AfD is for Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events and I'm not even bothering to look at the other articles. By the way. Is that (because it's no different) your justification for voting to keep? Did you bother to check WP:SOURCE? Sting_au Talk 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want me to go through the books and get a cite for each sentence in the article? I can get you a book title, chapter number, page number, even line number for each sentence. If that doesn't provide the references you so desire, there's really not much else I can do. Clamster 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the primary issue; the main one would be that there isn't anything like a commentary on how this was created, and what the influences were in creating the town, etc. Get about 3 of them and you have multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want me to go through the books and get a cite for each sentence in the article? I can get you a book title, chapter number, page number, even line number for each sentence. If that doesn't provide the references you so desire, there's really not much else I can do. Clamster 15:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not here to discuss how this page is different from all the other articles you mention. This AfD is for Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events and I'm not even bothering to look at the other articles. By the way. Is that (because it's no different) your justification for voting to keep? Did you bother to check WP:SOURCE? Sting_au Talk 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing more then plot sumaries of non-notable fictional locations. Ridernyc (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The main elements of fiction are plot characters and setting, and any article discussing multiple settings in a important series of works is notable. Not every town in it would be notable enough for an article, but the group article like this is appropriate coverage. There is no consensus whatsoever that secondary sources are needed for material o this sort. DGG (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So we ignore WP:Plot now? call it want you want it's nothing but plot summaries with no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails our notability policies and guidelines. Unreferenced, trivial and crufty. Eusebeus (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of meeting WP:FICTION Secret account 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per notability and verifiability (appearances in books, video game, movie, etc.), but possibly rename and expand as Locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about it meeting WP:FICTION Secret account 21:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to restate what I said before, in response to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles's suggestion:
- This page is one of five pages which contain information that used to be on a List of Locations in a Series of Unfortunate Events page, but was moved to Towns in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Watercraft in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Geographic locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Business locations in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and Houses in A Series of Unfortunate Events after a long discussion on numerous article talk pages and the Lemony Snicket Wikiproject talk page. Clamster 03:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability at WP:FICT, has no secondary sources, unnecessary plot repetition. •97198 talk 11:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTE this article should be deleted. SimpleParadox 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This could have fallen under the {{dn-nn}} non-notable speedy. I'm goign to tag it as such. Improbcat (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. —Random832 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- West Little Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced one-liner about a nn neighborhood in Little Rock. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per CSD:A1 - no context. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete despite user:Minopas saying that deleting it makes us stupid. DS (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gives the appearance of a hoax, no sources, probably speculative. Delete per WP:NOT. TeaDrinker (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not true, however there is a PC worms game in production. (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think this should be kept. It is 100% true! (Minopas (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete as a violation of WP:CBALL, at best. At worst, hoax; only supposed source is a member-only forum. GlassCobra 21:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who is saying delete it, stop it. (Minopas (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please leave this article alone. I am new here, and all i want to do is be cool. (Minopas (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- KnowledgeOfSelf looks into his crystal ball and sees a delete in the making KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete : completely unverifiable per WP:V and possible hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete junk. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as well given the major WP:V problems. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Say, KnowledgeOfSelf, can you dredge up some lottery numbers in that thing for me? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll have to pay me one hundred billion zillion dollars, to get em out of me. ;) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CBALL. --SimpleParadox 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Hoax; Google reveals zero results. — Wenli (reply here) 00:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anyone who thinks this should be deleted is stupid. (Minopas (talk) 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Closest thing i can find to this article is this (Shadowmoon13 (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. jj137 ♠ 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sony Ericsson T650 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete This was deleted before on mixed POV & notability grounds, from this one-liner, I'll assume POV has been dealt with, so is it still worth keeping? IMHO, no. Even if this were sourced, not each model of each consumer product is notable - go your average Wal-Mart, Tesco, or local equivalent and there will be 10's of thousands of UPC's not each of them is notable even if they do sell a lot of the gizmos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of every cel phone. Come back when it has multiple substantial references from reliable and inedpendent sources and is not an unreferenced oneliner. Edison (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regnart Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete nn elementary school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've stuck a speedy tag on it. Michaelbusch (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: article is completely non-notable per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. elementary schools are not generally notable and this one-line sub-stub doesn't make a case for this being an exception.Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, rename, stubify. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jews in Apostasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Note, this article has been moved to:
- Jews in apostasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, tagged for neutrality since April of 2007, provided only a single general reference - and "reference" links to to Wikipedia articles. There is no evidence that such a thing as 'Jews in Apostasy' even exists. Some of this information, if it can be cited, might be useful in an Apostasy disambig page - but I think the article establishes, if nothing else, that the world 'Apostasy' is not used in Judaism. AvruchTalk 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Avruch: Of course the English word "apostasy" is not a Hebrew word, but the translation of the word "apostate" is very much a word that's part of classical Judaism. Usually, a Jew who converts to another religion that Judaism terms an apostate, in Hebrew that would be meshumad as he has undergone shmad. One who denies God's existence is an apikores, a min, or mumar -- variances of this idea of "apostasy." These are very complex yet very solid issues that cannot be brushed away. The notions of "apostasy" and "heresy" in Judaism are very real. Wikipedia is not here to judge matters of theologies based on "popular usage" and you are therefore urged to withdraw your nomination since it is based on an entirely faulty assertion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the Jewish Encyclopedia article you reference (which is not listed as a reference in the article), and it reads like something we would delete pretty quickly if it were a Wikipedia article. Even its own rating gives the article a 2.75 out of 5. If there is no common usage of the term 'Apostasy' then it is considered original research to have an article under that name rather than the words actually used. AvruchTalk 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question that the JE is the most notable and reliable of sources, nor that anything that is notable enough for it is notable enough here. Lobojo (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Having read the article about Apostasy, I question whether your statement 'most...reliable of sources' is true. Aside from the inherent issue of a tertiary source quoting a tertiary source, it suffers from an extreme tone problem and is apparently written from a very strongly held point of view. This doesn't necessarily bar it as a reference, but when it is the ONLY reference? AvruchTalk 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Avruch: You are also overlooking the fact that the article was created over three years ago when many such articles were started from scratch by being cut-and-pasted from the JE by some WP Judaic editors to get the ball rolling on Wikipedia and then presented for further editing (it still happens.) Again, I repeat that, since I have never cut-and-paste anything from the JE, the article was part of another longer WP article and because of space issues it was put here by me (something that happens on WP.) The fact that it was primarily derived from the JE should not be disparaged because at the JE it was created as a group effort of many scholars many of whom were not even particularly observant of Judaism but were nevertheless recognized as academic scholars in the field, so your critique is off the mark. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Having read the article about Apostasy, I question whether your statement 'most...reliable of sources' is true. Aside from the inherent issue of a tertiary source quoting a tertiary source, it suffers from an extreme tone problem and is apparently written from a very strongly held point of view. This doesn't necessarily bar it as a reference, but when it is the ONLY reference? AvruchTalk 11:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question that the JE is the most notable and reliable of sources, nor that anything that is notable enough for it is notable enough here. Lobojo (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the Jewish Encyclopedia article you reference (which is not listed as a reference in the article), and it reads like something we would delete pretty quickly if it were a Wikipedia article. Even its own rating gives the article a 2.75 out of 5. If there is no common usage of the term 'Apostasy' then it is considered original research to have an article under that name rather than the words actually used. AvruchTalk 11:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Avruch: Of course the English word "apostasy" is not a Hebrew word, but the translation of the word "apostate" is very much a word that's part of classical Judaism. Usually, a Jew who converts to another religion that Judaism terms an apostate, in Hebrew that would be meshumad as he has undergone shmad. One who denies God's existence is an apikores, a min, or mumar -- variances of this idea of "apostasy." These are very complex yet very solid issues that cannot be brushed away. The notions of "apostasy" and "heresy" in Judaism are very real. Wikipedia is not here to judge matters of theologies based on "popular usage" and you are therefore urged to withdraw your nomination since it is based on an entirely faulty assertion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable & unverified article per WP:N and WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to survive WP:N the reference and an external link to the Jewish Encyclopedia seem reliable. I did have WP:NOR concerns but I consider this article worthy of inclusion here. A good clean up, footnotes etc. Sting_au Talk 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mh29255. The reference is an encyclopedia article about Spanish crypto-Jews, not apostates. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Weak keep and rename It wasn't at all clear that the Jewish Encyclopedia was a source. I've corrected that. There's potential for an article about Apostasy in Judaism. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment You are looking at the wrong reference. There are two JE references in the article including a reference to APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM. Jon513 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he was looking at the references correctly. The Apostasy article from JE was an external link, not a reference (inaccurately so). AvruchTalk 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking at the only reference. I fixed the article to indicate that the Jewish Encyclopedia article on "Apostasy and Apostates" was also a source. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he was looking at the references correctly. The Apostasy article from JE was an external link, not a reference (inaccurately so). AvruchTalk 19:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment You are looking at the wrong reference. There are two JE references in the article including a reference to APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM. Jon513 (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename A simple Google search establishes that the current title is not a common phrasing. However, the words "mumar", "meshumad", etc seem to be the standard/notable words in describing Jews who converted. See [7] on naming issue Joshdboz (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because this article is based on the Jewish Encyclopedia article about APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM: so it is notable and well sourced, and the claim that it "only" links to articles in Wikipedia is not true. This is solid Jewish Encyclopedia material, that should actually be expanded and not hounded for deletion simply because the notion does not sit will with some folks. As far as I can recall, all the material in this article was once part of the very long Jew article (it might have been part of another article, as I can recall setting it up as a spin off due to the length of another article -- it has been three years, so I do not recall exactly), and when that article became too long and cumbersome parts of it were split up. At any rate, the article is about a valid and key concept and subject in Judaism (regardless if Jews know about it or do or don't use it) and there is absolutely no reason for this nomination that makes no sense. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When a user like IZAK creates an article, it takes a bold person to nominate it for AfD, and that is for good reason. Why would he create an article if it was not on something notable? He knows all the rules, and works for wikipedias best interest. But mainly it is clearly a notable topic, it was in the Jewish Encyclopedia, though I am not sure that the A in Apostasy should be capital. Lobojo (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lobojo, while I truly appreciate the praise, the truth is, as I have stated, that this article is basically from the Jewish Encyclopedia and I did not "create it" I simply moved it from another article that it was attached to, and since this was over three years ago, I can't remember exactly which one, but I think it was the Jew article. Anyhow, the topic of the article is more than notable and well-sourced because it's mostly from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: should this article be merged with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism or is there a distinction? --MPerel 05:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Miri. The answer to your question is: No, because the notion of "apostasy" is part of Judaism long before the labels of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative come along. Just look at the Jewish Encyclopedia article APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM:, and you will see that this subject is not the "property" of Orthodox Judaism, it is part of the history and practice of Judaism for thousands of years. And it should not be made to look like some sort of "irrelevant" subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if that article should be merged into this one then. What do you think? The bulk of the heresy article seems to talk about apikoros and mumar, which overlaps with this article. There's basically only one sentence in the heresy article about the modern movements, just to say that Orthodox Judaism views the other movements as heretical. --MPerel 07:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Now I see that that someone has created a Minuth article, so soon we will have to have a "series" with a template to match. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Apostasy & Heresy & Minuth. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Miri: Why do we have to re-invent the wheel and try to be smarter than the Jewish Encyclopdia (besides updating the older English style)? In recent times the trend has been to create articles with "Judaism" in the name, such as: Bereavement in Judaism; Honorifics for the dead in Judaism; Confession in Judaism; Shaving in Judaism. Then there is the variation using the conjointive "and" such as: Homosexuality and Judaism; Judaism and Islam; Christianity and Judaism, and the use of "Jewish" as in Jewish views of marriage; Jewish services; Jewish history; Jewish population; and List of Jewish prayers and blessings. So there are a number of ways to skin this cat. You can legitimately have an article about Apostasy in Judaism (it redirects to Jews in Apostasy) or Judaism and apostasy, that could cover all the sub-divisions, using the Jewish Encyclopedia APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM: article as the model and key references because it covers every base actually. Read it and you'll see. Or, alternately the article can be called Jewish views of apostasy and heresy, and we can even have a List of Jewish terms for Jews who reject Judaism and God. I think that "Jews in apostasy" was created as some sort of compromise at the time but I can't recall all the issues as it was over three years ago. IZAK (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Miri. The answer to your question is: No, because the notion of "apostasy" is part of Judaism long before the labels of Orthodox, Reform, Conservative come along. Just look at the Jewish Encyclopedia article APOSTASY AND APOSTATES FROM JUDAISM:, and you will see that this subject is not the "property" of Orthodox Judaism, it is part of the history and practice of Judaism for thousands of years. And it should not be made to look like some sort of "irrelevant" subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though the title should be changed to something more idiomatic in English. This is different from heresy. There is some overlap, in the sense that if one is sufficiently heretical one is no longer a Jew. But in modern use at least the concepts are very different.DGG (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG, see my response [8] to User:Miri, above. Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep given that the Jewish Encyclopedia is a reliable source. Capitalistroadster (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jewish Encyclopedia is enough for a keep. Bhaktivinode (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep The article overlaps with Heresy in Orthodox Judaism a bit too much and the distinction is not well defined, but AFD is the not place to establish order on a series of article. I hope that these articles can be merged or renamed to cover the subject better. Jon513 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge First, the concept of heresy in Orthodox Judaism has many grey areas but also has plenty of reliable sources available discussing it. Second, "apostasy" may not be the best article term for current usage. Given that other editors have pointed out several other articles which have substantial overlap and which could probably be merged, I believe the issue of the appropriate article name should be discussed as part of a merge discussion including Heresy in Orthodox Judaism and Minuth. Note that Apikorus redirects to Heresy in Orthodox Judaism.
I agree the concept here is principally one within Orthodox Judaism and should be clearly described as such, rather than ascribed to Judaism generally.Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Egfrank has pointed out below that Reform Judaism also has boundary issues and related questions about the limits of Judaism, different from Orthodox Judaism, which include matters such as interfaith syncretizations in contemporary society. For this reason, discussion may result in a broader article which is not limited to Orthodox Judaism. However, my recommendation that this AfD result in a keep and a separate merge discussion address how to combine the overlapping articles still stands. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per IZAK. Culturalrevival (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although this topic is notable and deserves an article, there are serious long standing problems with this article and the article Heresy in Orthodox Judaism with which a merger has been proposed. None has (yet) committed to dealing with them, not even among those here defending the article. If someone is willing to commit to dealing with these issues, then my recommendation would change to Keep, merge, rename to "Apostasy in Judaism".
- WP:SYNTH - the article defines apostasy very differently from the JE article from which it is allegedly sourced. The JE article defines apostasy as "rebellion", makes no claims of denominational ownership and takes a historical approach to its changing significance in the Jewish world. Apostasy in Judaism defines apostasy as an orthodox only term, narrows the definition to adoption of a second religion and makes no acknowledgment of changing perceptions over time.
- WP:V - apostasy (more politely called "converting out" or sometimes "secularism"[9]) is a deep concern of all religious streams of Judaism yet both articles present this as exclusively an orthodox issue and provide no citations to support this denominational exclusivity. Nor could they: all of the material in Jews in Apostasy predates the denominational splits within Judaism and ample material exists indicating that this is not an exclusive orthodox issue. In 2004 the US Reform movement lodged formal protests against Presbyterian funding of missionary activities targeted at Jews[10]. The conservative movement publishes counter missionary materials on its website[11]. In fact one of the guiding motives behind the 19th century Jewish religious reformers whose thought spurred the creation of today's non-orthodox Judaisms was the desire to fight against apostasy - Jews converting to Christianity because they saw it as a purer more modern religion or because they simply found being a Christian more convenient.[12] See also Meyer, Response to Modernity pp 44, 65, 68, 97, 204.
- WP:NPOV - this rule requires that all points of view be represented yet there has been no significant editorial effort in that direction. There is no way that an encyclopedia article written in 1906 can adequately cover a topic that continues to be of deep concern to the Jewish people. RAMBI has 427 (academic quality) sources listed[13] almost all of which were written after the JE article. They approach this issue from almost every point of view and academic discipline imaginable: psychology, sociology, social commentary, theology, halakhah, ethics, history, among others. A lot of social and historical water has passed under the bridge since 1906 and much of it has significantly affected the attitudes towards apostasy and heresy. Among them: the holocaust; Jewish-Arab tensions; the rise of Jewish denominationalism; the increasing acceptance of the belief that religion is a personal choice rather than a biological identity; the development of hybrid religions such as Judaism+Buddhism, Judaism+Native American Spirituality and Judaism+Christianity; and the increasing acceptance of secularized forms of Judaism. Egfrank (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Points 2 and 3 in particular could be copied helpfully to the article Talk page. HG | Talk 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that both (a) The article has received unsourced edits which have caused its contents to veer from its cited source, and (b) the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, while a reliable source, is only one opinion in a subject where there are multiple opinions, and this is one of many areas where what it has to say is rather dated. However, AfD concerns subjects rather than articles, so the question is whether a reliable article on this subject is possible, not whether the current article content meets this goal. Bad articles can be improved. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad articles can be improved - in fact, they ought to be either improved or deleted. It doesn't appear that anyone has taken the initiative (including a keep voter, IZAK, the author) to improve it beyond its sorry state. AvruchTalk 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DEL#REASON and the listed bases for deleting an article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Include, but not limited to..." It probably should also list "Crap, not otherwise classified" but this fails for more than just that, as you see in above discussion. Avruch talk 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On religious matters sources, as you noted, can be opinionated. I think there's a difference between deleting an article as crap because it isn't notable, sourcable, etc., and deleting an article as crap because an editor doesn't like what the sources have to say. I say this as a person who is not a big fan of the Jewish Encyclopedia, has often found its views opinionated and outdated, and has sometimes inserted "According to the editors of the Jewish Encyclopeda" into articles to avoid presenting their opinions as fact. But on many matters it provides reliable information and the viewpoint it offers is generally a signficant one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Include, but not limited to..." It probably should also list "Crap, not otherwise classified" but this fails for more than just that, as you see in above discussion. Avruch talk 15:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:DEL#REASON and the listed bases for deleting an article. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad articles can be improved - in fact, they ought to be either improved or deleted. It doesn't appear that anyone has taken the initiative (including a keep voter, IZAK, the author) to improve it beyond its sorry state. AvruchTalk 18:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we at least agree that "apostasy should not be capitalized? Click on that link to see how it's used in the article. I requested a non-controversial move at wp:requested moves and I think it's fairly clear. The title seems to be capitalized the way it is because of previous edit conflicts between Apostasy in Judaism and Jews in apostasy.
- Oh, and in response to Avruch, editors my be awaiting a resolution of this discussion before spending time and energy improving an article that's been nominated for deletion.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps - but it isn't a new article, and its been tagged for cleanup since May of 2006. AvruchTalk 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, keep is my vote. I have a little problem with one encyclopedia using another encyclopedia as a source, but the fact that JE has an article on the subject shows that it's notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Since the article seems to deal more directly with Jews who are or were in apostasy than the concept of Apostasy in Judaism, I think the article is best kept under its current title (with the exception of downcasing "apostasy", which I believe is uncontroversial).(refactored for clarity) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On further reflection, I think that "Apostasy in Judaism" seems like a more elegant solution to namind, but would require a rewrite of the article so it focuses on the concept rather than the people associated with it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename, perhaps as per User:Malik Shabazz. StaticElectric (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename because the emphasis of the article should be on apostasy, its various types and historical manifestations. While it may be helpful to mention notable individuals, esp those who shed new light on the subject matter, the specific Jews (or former Jews) can mostly be covered in bio articles and listed in the See Also or by category. I might lean toward "Apostasy and Judaism" insofar at it's a more flexible scope than "Apostasy in Judaism," but either is fine. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wanted to add that apostasy and heresy are quite different. Apostasy means abandoning the religion. Conversely, heresy means attempting to 'keep the religion, except that some authorities reject the attempt as too far afield. Apostates are typically self-identifying, even if they don't use the word apostate. Conversely, heretics typically do not self-identify as heretics, because they still consider themselves within the fold. In rabbinic discourse, moreover, there are terms for various types of non-believers and non-observant Jews, who are not quite apostates or heretics. Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 18:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Has anybody mentioned that this article is set up as the spin-out from Apostasy#In_Judaism? As such, most of the AfD deletion arguments, as given above, don't seem plausible or applicable. In addition, the summary style arrangement does indicate the need for an appropriate rename. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on deletion, but if kept, it must be renamed. Apostate Jews or Apostasy in Judaism would be appropriate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Flippin' Flapjacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I couldn't find a single website confirming the existence of this band. The names sound fake so this might be a hoax, but even if it does exist I don't see WP:BAND being satisfied anyway. shoeofdeath (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - but, since this is here: It fails WP:BAND and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : no references per WP:V and possible hoax. Mh29255 (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even if not a hoax the WP:V problem is outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced, unverifiable article that fails WP:BAND. — Wenli (reply here) 00:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected, feel free to merge usuable content. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Allison incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete as unnecessary fork from Nanking Massacre Mayalld (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When reading the Nanking Massacre article, we see that it is an article about a war atrocity, about rape and murder against innocent civilians. Even though the Allison incident happened at the same time in the same city, it has nothing to do with the crimes committed in the massacre because it is an incident on a diplomatic level, not a crime against humanity. The two are interesting because of completely different reasons. When looking at the Massacre article, I don't see a place where the Allison incident would fit properly. When reading about atrocities like rape and murder you don't expect to suddenly be reading about some American diplomat being punched in the face. Baskwaadgras (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This does look like something that could be included in the main article just fine; it's short and not terribly detailed. Merge back to Nanking Massacre - perhaps it could be placed in the first few paragraphs under "Atrocities begin," with the mention of the Safety Zone, as an indication of how foreign officials were treated? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would Nanking Safety Zone possibly be a better merge target? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Properly, John M. Allison would be the best merge target. He was a career diplomat and eventually US Ambassador to Japan under Eisenhower.[14] I do think this is notable enough, as it was the aspect that most affected US-Japan relations (given the perspective of the time). --Dhartung | Talk 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that if this is to be merged, it should be with John M. Allison: that article is short, too. Baskwaadgras (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to John M. Allison. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Edward321. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. jj137 ♠ 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no credible assertion of notability, tagged for cleanup since October of 2006. This article stats that Mims founded the company 'Excel Communications' but the wikilinked article on that company lists someone else as the founder, and the company Excel (now defunt) is itself of highly questionable notability. Additionaly, the tone of this article is far from being encyclopedic. All told (notability, quality of writing, lack of references) argue for its deletion, IMHO. AvruchTalk 20:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Although Mims has lots of Google hits, most if not all are promotional in tone, with little or no true notability underneath. --Lockley (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:HEY reasoning. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 08:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Monk and the Man Who Shot Santa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete the series is notable, not every episode is. This isn't.` Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirectto List of Monk episodes per WP:EPISODE.I checked a couple of Monk episodes, and they all suffer the same problem of non-established notability, hence a major episode merge/redirect discussion might come up soon anyway. – sgeureka t•c 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it meets WP:EPISODE. – sgeureka t•c 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much as I love Monk and the others, articles about individual episodes of a TV show are a holdover from Wikipedia's start-up days, and are available on other websites. Mandsford (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Don't Delete" The article has been expanded and if anyone is interested I will expand it more. However, I do see the wisdom of the other users who commented. So I am alright with deletion, but I would like to see it stay and be expanded. Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 03:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You just expanded the plot, which is actually working against WP:NOT#PLOT. To be kept, this article needs to establish notability, which is usually done by having a sourced production section and a reception section. – sgeureka t•c 10:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and, per sgeureka, consider a wider redirect of the other episodes since there is a general failure to assert real-world notability. Eusebeus (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This episode was reviewed by IGN[15]. I still don't understand how a show can be notable but its episodes (which comprise the show) not be notable. The show is nothing but episodes. --Pixelface (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, My Mother the Car was a highly notable TV show. Its individual episodes, not so much. Of course, that has nothing to do with Monk, whose episodes are each individually viewed by millions and reviewed by multiple critics. Personally, I don't understand how an episode watched by 4.5 million viewers on its first showing is not notable. DHowell (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unlikely search term so no redirect is needed. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Chicago Daily Herald, CinemaBlend, and BuddyTV. DHowell (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even stronger keep now that I've improved the article by adding sources and sourced information. DHowell (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non notable episode. All we have is a plot summary and some cut and paste TV Guide reviews. No indication of any non trivial coverage. Nuttah (talk) 13:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be a notable Christmas special for this show, and there are some citations to support this. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not asserted from reliable sources. Flex (talk/contribs) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : article about a specific product contains unverifiable information per WP:V. Further, references contained within the article are primarily to the product manufacturer's website and may be an advertisement or spam.Mh29255 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : article has been sufficiently edited to be more notable than before. Mh29255 (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- using Google News' archive search, I found several dozen relevant articles and reviews from publications that meet the reliable source requirements. --A. B. (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Can you specify which ones count as reliable sources that are not more than passing references or product announcements? I read the MacWorld, Macsimum, and MacNN references listed in your search, and none that I saw provided significant coverage (cf. WP:N). They're just product announcements (the MacWorld "review" is really just stating that Accordance is now OS X native and offers some quotes from the developer). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I thought I had de-spammed this sufficiently after it had been expanded by a user who had a conflict of interest. The Reviews section provides links to independent sources, and I thought these were sufficiently reliable, e.g. Society of Biblical Literature. The links to Reviews on the manufacturer's site are verifiable too. Please give me guidance if it needs more. My only interest is as a user of this product. It is a market leader, see e.g. SBL link above and Christian Mac Users Group. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The things that flagged it in my mind were the lack of references to third-party sources. All of the references and inline notes are to the Accordance website, which makes it still rather spammy. It wasn't clear to me that the list of reviews were published reliable sources rather than just some user's opinion on the net. For instance, the SBL review is in the "SBL Forum". Is that an internet forum or something more reliable (e.g., can we be reasonably sure the author is who he claims to be?)? The review in MacWorld is pretty old in computer years, not to mention brief -- they give the same amount of space to Marine Aquarium 2.0, which doesn't seem to have or deserve its own article. In other words, a brief review of features in MacWorld is certainly a reliable source, but it doesn't constitute significant coverage (cf. WP:N). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply about SBL: The Society of Biblical Literature has its own article here. Its own home page says is the oldest and largest international scholarly membership organization in the field of biblical studies, founded in 1880. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me. I've rearranged the Reviews section to include a link to the SBL article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My question wasn't about the reliability of the SBL. I am familiar with it, and it of course constitutes a reliable source in general. My concern was about the "Forum" part of their website, but I see now that it is "the online newsletter of the Society of Biblical Literature. It features essays, interviews, and up-to-date news of general and professional interest to SBL members. Its mission is to provide short, useful articles to inform, educate, and address the professional needs of biblical scholars, as well as those interested in biblical studies." Certainly that is a good source, and it would be best to have it as a reference rather than just an external link (cf. WP:EL). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment looking a little closer at the results, here's how it looks to me:
- Reply about SBL: The Society of Biblical Literature has its own article here. Its own home page says is the oldest and largest international scholarly membership organization in the field of biblical studies, founded in 1880. Sounds like a Reliable Source to me. I've rearranged the Reviews section to include a link to the SBL article. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The things that flagged it in my mind were the lack of references to third-party sources. All of the references and inline notes are to the Accordance website, which makes it still rather spammy. It wasn't clear to me that the list of reviews were published reliable sources rather than just some user's opinion on the net. For instance, the SBL review is in the "SBL Forum". Is that an internet forum or something more reliable (e.g., can we be reasonably sure the author is who he claims to be?)? The review in MacWorld is pretty old in computer years, not to mention brief -- they give the same amount of space to Marine Aquarium 2.0, which doesn't seem to have or deserve its own article. In other words, a brief review of features in MacWorld is certainly a reliable source, but it doesn't constitute significant coverage (cf. WP:N). --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mac magazine articles and reviews with bylines (short): [16][17][18]
- Abstracts of apparently longer reviews and multi-product comparisons: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
- No byline -- probably reprinted press releases (if so, they don't satisfy notability): [26][27]
- Passing but interesting mention about use in preparing a new translation: [28]
- Reviews listed at Accordance#Reviews
- Then there are all these links to independent reviews listed on the Accordance website.
- Add it altogether with the observation made above that this is the dominant package for the Mac and I think this software is notable per the primary criterion section of the Notability Guideline for Organizations and Companies. --A. B. (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of the Mac magazine articles contain anything but a basic feature list. That is not significant coverage (cf. WP:N). I can't see the pay-only abstracts (which are really the first few paragraphs, not abstracts summarizing the entire content of the article). Does anyone have access? The "no bylines" are little different than the Mac magazine "articles" in content or length, and neither qualifies as significant coverage IMO. I commented above on the reviews listed in the article itself, and my concerns have not been addressed yet. The reviews listed on the Accordance website show the most promise for answering the problems here (note, however, that the links they supply go to [apparently edited] versions of the reviews hosted on their own website, which is unacceptable as a reliable source for our purposes here -- we need the originals). Is someone willing to go through them and source this article so it is clearly notable and verifiable? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- --A. B. (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that the notability guidelines used to require at least one instance of in-depth coverage for a topic to be notable; that's been expanded to allow for multiple less-than-in-depth (but more than trivial) secondary sources:
- "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."
- --A. B. (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Until now, I haven't seen anything but trivial coverage (e.g. a brief feature list in the Mac mags) except in unreliable places. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are better. I'd still like confirmation that the "SBL Forum" is not an internet forum. Also, the CW links are from 2002, which is relatively old in computer land. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply above re SBL. SBL forum is not an internet forum. - Fayenatic (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note that the notability guidelines used to require at least one instance of in-depth coverage for a topic to be notable; that's been expanded to allow for multiple less-than-in-depth (but more than trivial) secondary sources:
- Keep sufficient reviews to show notability.DGG (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are enough sources to warrant retention of the article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised - Keep: User:Fayenatic london has done a good job of adding sources to make it verifiable and clearly notable (though certainly more work could still be done). --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- J. Alan Groves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No documentation of notability, and I couldn't find any by searching. Flex (talk/contribs) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Multiple mentions when I searched for his name using Google Scholar. Less compelling are a couple of things found with Google News: a small town newspaper's profile and a 351-word obit in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Beyond that, I think the computer work he did is significant, I found hundreds of mentions using Google Scholar when I searched for Groves Wheeler Morphology. --A. B. (talk)
- Question: What do you think of creating an article for the Hebrew Morphology he helped create? That is what seems to be notable, not the man. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response -- I'm open to this, however I think we need to see where this AfD goes. I don't know whether we're talking about a common article or two separate articles. Also, so much of the stuff I found with Google Scholar I either don't understand or is unaccessible to me behind paywalls, so someone more knowledgeable would need to write it up --perhaps a theologian or even a linguist. I'm thinking of seeking help with this and I am leaving you a note on your talk page about this. --A. B. (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What do you think of creating an article for the Hebrew Morphology he helped create? That is what seems to be notable, not the man. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions, list of Academics and educators-related deletions, and list of Social science-related deletions. A notice has also been left on the WikiProject Linguistics talk page --A. B. (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Full professor at a leading mainstream theological school; the extent of the citation in GS show that he is a hghly respected scholar . DGG (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But the article has no independent sources vouching for the man's notability. It seems clear to me that the Groves-Wheeler Hebrew Morphology is influential and deserves coverage, but I don't see enough verifiable material to cover than man himself. The results on Google Scholar include one review by Groves of a database of Biblical texts, but, AFAICT (and I can't see the ones behind the pay wall), the rest are mainly thanks and acknowledgments in others' scholarly works or passing references to his morphology. These don't qualify him as notable, and neither does merely being a professor at a seminary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I think in combination with DGG's comment, this pretty much cinches this one. --A. B. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, Having said that, I suggest keeping the AfD open for now in case there's any more discussion of Flex' idea about an article on Groves' morphology. I tried to cast a wide net via deletion sorting lists and (neutral) Wikiproject notices looking for help. --A. B. (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the last paragraph under WP:PROF#Criteria and the section WP:PROF#Caveats apply here (at least, I haven't seen anything to the contrary yet). Thus, I suggest we create Groves-Wheeler morphology and have a (verifiable) bit about Groves and Wheeler in there. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I think in combination with DGG's comment, this pretty much cinches this one. --A. B. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But the article has no independent sources vouching for the man's notability. It seems clear to me that the Groves-Wheeler Hebrew Morphology is influential and deserves coverage, but I don't see enough verifiable material to cover than man himself. The results on Google Scholar include one review by Groves of a database of Biblical texts, but, AFAICT (and I can't see the ones behind the pay wall), the rest are mainly thanks and acknowledgments in others' scholarly works or passing references to his morphology. These don't qualify him as notable, and neither does merely being a professor at a seminary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sources already in the article, while they did not establish notability, are reliable for the purposes of building an article. --A. B. (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and I still think my previous suggestion is the best course of action. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
Delete nothing notable about this individual. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I can't find any reliable sources indicating that he has garnered notability for his work as yet. Fails WP:BIO. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- nothing found using Google News. --A. B. (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not meet criteria for inclusion outlined in WP:NOTE. --SimpleParadox 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, per criteria G4. The article is sufficiently similar to the previous version; previous AfD's concerns have not been addressed. Marasmusine (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Grey School of Wizardry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Has no references as to notability and only has one link to a website of the same name. Should check for a violation of WP:COI and seems to be WP:SPAM. SimpleParadox 20:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and previous AfD. Shouldn't this be a speedy G4? JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per {{template:db-repost}}. Ra2007 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and so tagged. Jauerback (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 12:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enterprise relationship management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be little more than spam for TechnologyPartnerz.com Thalter (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, valid term and sourcing. The spam part is the "Velox ERM" section and the external links. --Dhartung | Talk 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I agree with Thalter, this is thinly dressed spam. It is also a non-notable neogolism, and should be consigned to the trash can along with Marketing relationship management, Enterprise relationship network and Enterprise management systems etc. etc. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - valid term, real phenomenon, properly sourced. If one doesn't approve of annoying business-speak, that's a gripe with society, not the wikipedia articles that describe society. Wikidemo (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in just terrible shape, but this seems to be a real thing, with sources. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
- Lexington-class fleet carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fictional starship with no out-of-universe information and no secondary sources to establish real-world notability. The article is little more than a list of statistics not suitable for merging. Pagrashtak 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, and for failure to show notability per WP:N and for failure to satisfy WP:FICTION. Per the article talk page, much of the detail comes from fans and thus appears to fail WP:V as well. (edited)Edison (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete: In-universe article with absolutely no assertion of real life notability.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Ten "keeps" in one hour is clearly a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently POV —Whig (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there are POV issues with the article, then by all means correct them, but it seems that the subject matter is notable enough and sources are plenty. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or change to more modern name, such as Medical fraud (currently redirects to this article). But do not delete! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If every article that had some POV issues were to be summarily deleted, there would not be much of a Wikipedia left. Correct the issue, do not delete. --SimpleParadox 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Srong Keep - Article has one small POV issue in that the section "Notable historical persons accused of quackery" has grown to large and bloated. Otherwise article is well written and sourced appropriately. I do not believe this article should be deleted because of an easily fixable issue. Elhector (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily satisfies WP:N. "Inherently POV" is not a deletion criteria, per Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. Given the nominator's history, this is probably a WP:POINTed nomination. Fireplace (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. Fireplace (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That such an obviously notable topic could be nominated for deletion stretches the limits of WP:AGF. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Srong Keep - This is ridiculous. Notable, interesting and useful. And I believe this violates Whig's probation terms. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an obviously notable topic (borderline speedy or WP:SNOW). Nominating this article, with the rationale "Inherently POV", speaks to either a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPOV or bad faith. A combination of the two cannot be entirely excluded. MastCell Talk 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per everyone else here. Quacks would love for people to think that quackery is a point of view issue, but it just isn't. Rray (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:SNOW, and no reasons presented considered to be reasons for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY KEEP due to more information being added to the page. Final vote tally was 10/1/0 Thanks to everyone who participated. Dustihowe Talk 18:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rushville Consolidated High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There is simply no information in this article, this article is unimportant to Wikipedia. I thought maybe it would be useful when I created the article, but now it looks like we should just delete this article. Dustihowe Talk 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are the only user that has made substantial edits to the article. Unless anyone makes substantial changes to the page, you can request speedy deletion by adding {{db-author}}. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion seems to be being contested, and high school article deletion is controversial so I suggest you let the AFD continue. I do however disagree with the reason given for removal of the speedy tag added, as adding templates is not making substantial contributions to the page, and been put at AFD earlier by the author does not disqualify an article from this criteria. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High Schools are given a pass for notability, while middle/primary are not. It is SOP to allow all high schools. Pharmboy (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Where have we determined that high schools are given a pass for notability? Nothing here to establish notability per WP:N other than the assumption that secondary educational facilities are inherently notable, which is a contentious issue. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about in the official policy where it says "High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable.". This should be a SPEEDY KEEP, purely out of policy. Pharmboy (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's not a policy and it's not even a guideline yet. It is one of two proposals under discussion for a guideline. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about in the official policy where it says "High schools/secondary schools (all jurisdictions) are considered inherently notable.". This should be a SPEEDY KEEP, purely out of policy. Pharmboy (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seeing that over 1,000 are currently in attendance I find it rather humorous that someone finds this not passing some imaginary line for notability. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some quick research indicates that this school used to be known simply as Rushville High School. I just thought I should leave a note for anyone who wants to look into this place. I'm poking around on Newsbank at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a little bit of info. The school was associated with a high-profile court case regarding random student drug tests. Zagalejo^^^ 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SCHOOL where we have indeed determined that high schools are given a pass for notability -- Masterzora (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not really. The notability guideline proposal is only under discussion, there are at least two options under discussion of which only one suggests all high schools are notable, and there's a good chance neither option will pass. Schools fall under the same WP:NPOV, V and OR inclusion policies that all articles do. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Improvements are been made, so speedy deletion per original author request cannot apply any more. Article now contains some independent and reliable resources, and a search also suggests more can be added, combined I think this article can/does pass WP:N. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary schools tend to be notable, and this one's policy of random drug testing and the related Todd v. Rush County court case generated plenty of coverage.[34] [35] • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above and beyond the strong consensus of notability for high schools established over hundreds of AfDs demonstrating a clear consensus for retention, the reliable and verifiable sources provided here -- particularly those related to setting standards on school drug testing policies -- satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources have been added to establish notability more clearly. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of recent sources discovered, the subject is evidently notable. RFerreira (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now that there is more info on this school, I would like the article to be kept. Dustihowe Talk 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 18:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotch (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable, no good sources, nothing special. Delete Metal Head (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found http://swisscharts.com/showinterpret.asp?interpret=Scotch pretty quickly, which would mean they are likely notable and the article just needs a lot of work, which doesn't qualify for afd. Pharmboy (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While not a particularly well written article, there are ample sources on the Internet referring to the band "Scotch", including commercial sites where the band's music can be purchased. Mh29255 (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability presumed as they have charted multiple songs (well, at least 2) on a national chart per WP:MUSIC. Xymmax (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have compiled top-10 singles and album information from a number of related websites and table-fied them with references. This goes partway toward establishing notability. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by the Subject of the article (Ammon Johns)[36], Black Knight UK (talk · contribs). Has a few links but they seem to be self published or trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Self-promotion is not the route to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per Hu12's comprehensive reasoning. --SimpleParadox 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unable to find unaffiliated sources to establish notability. Xymmax (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transportation on the Isle of Wight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Doesn't this pretty much make the article a how to guide? Pharmboy (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What task is it giving you step-by-step instructions in performing? Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How to get there and how to get around once you are there. It may be worthwhile in WikiTravel or as a subsection in an article about the Island itself, but the entire article is how to get there by sea, rail, bus, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. There are no step-by-step guides on how to get there in the entire article. The article contains no recipes, tutorials, manuals, walk-throughs, or other how-to information. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#HOWTO doesn't use the phrase "step by step" so I guess it is a matter of interpretation, as the purpose of the article is 'how to get to and around' the place. A less confrontational tone would also be appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the purpose of the article is not "how to get around the place". It's an article about transportation on the Isle of Wight. And the policy gives you the very same list of things that I've just stated, none of which, as I have said, are in the article. This isn't a matter of interpretation. This is a matter of this article being nothing like what the policy is addressing at all. And asking a question and contradicting a statement is not confrontational. It is discussion, which is what this discussion sub-page is for. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It appears you and I define lots of things differently. So were you saying KEEP? I didn't see a vote. Pharmboy (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the purpose of the article is not "how to get around the place". It's an article about transportation on the Isle of Wight. And the policy gives you the very same list of things that I've just stated, none of which, as I have said, are in the article. This isn't a matter of interpretation. This is a matter of this article being nothing like what the policy is addressing at all. And asking a question and contradicting a statement is not confrontational. It is discussion, which is what this discussion sub-page is for. Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT#HOWTO doesn't use the phrase "step by step" so I guess it is a matter of interpretation, as the purpose of the article is 'how to get to and around' the place. A less confrontational tone would also be appreciated. Pharmboy (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. There are no step-by-step guides on how to get there in the entire article. The article contains no recipes, tutorials, manuals, walk-throughs, or other how-to information. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How to get there and how to get around once you are there. It may be worthwhile in WikiTravel or as a subsection in an article about the Island itself, but the entire article is how to get there by sea, rail, bus, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with main Isle of Wight article as separate "Transportation" section. Mh29255 (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That would be fine with me. Pharmboy (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already a summary style breakout article of Isle of Wight#Transportation. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: this is a useful article which contains plenty of encyclopaedic information - and admittedly a bit of buscruft as well. I can see the case Pharmboy makes but I consider that the problem with the article is that it needs editing, not deleting. There is a very active community of Island Wikipedians so I suggest we give this brand-new article a little while to be edited and see how it settles in. Naturenet | Talk 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Retain It was the consensus of discussion at the Isle of Wight talk page that this material should be spun out into its own subsiduary article. And so it was. It is new, and has a few rough edges still, but a lot can be done to improve this, such as discussing the history of transport on the Island (the history of the railways and ship transport etc is substantial and interesting). We are developing a family of strong articles about the Isle of Wight, and the main Isle of Wight page should be a clear and succinct summary of Island information. Other aspects of interest such as the culture, history, towns, transport, residents etc are being developed in a suite of subsiduary daughter articles. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper.--Filll (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Cleanup - (Editor of Similar Intrest Article) These types of articles act as a starting point for research and are top Top Importance in country WikiProjects. Personally I would trim down the prose, but tastes differ. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly good comprehensive article. Some more detail would probably be appropriate. DGG (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article needs to be improved, perhaps starting with some historical background on transportation on the island. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation for Afd was not included: I don't know why. The reason is simply that this article fails to meet notability for both WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. A speedy was removed and I suspect a PROD would be, too. So I took it here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenneth Pickett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete per nom. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I hate to say 'per nom' but I think he is spot on with this one. Not sure we need an article for the North Carolina Largest Bass and the thousands of similar that would be created either. Pharmboy (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ariticle does meet notability criteria. Article is not about something that is localized but rather something that involves one state, and also the country (USA). I fail to see how this fails under WP:NOT#NEWS considering the article is about not one, but two permenant records. Citing WP:BIO1E does not cover this situation either because this person neither was convicted of an "unimportant crime or standing election, ect". This invoves not one, but two valid standing records and I feel that this is information that will server the greater population. Censuring it out would only do a disservice to the end user. Ktwelk (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)ktwelk[reply]
- WP:NOT#NEWS is really the core of my argument, so please allow me quote it in some detail:
- Not Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events... Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article.
- See, it's not a question of how many press stories or "permanent records" there are about this man. There is no historical notability about someone shooting the biggest turkey in Wisconsin no matter how many local or even national papers cite it. That's my position, anyway. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, NN state hunting "record" (which has as much to do with luck as anything else). --Dhartung | Talk 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the subject is not notable, and WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a clear fit. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
Relisting on AFD as outcome of a bundled nomination. Article is an in-universe treatment of a fictional group in the Battletech universe lacking citations to support verifiability or notability. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:Notability, this article has none. --SimpleParadox 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as nominator of original bundle. Pagrashtak 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Cosmo piece is a valid source, but the argument that this alone is insufficient to meet the notability guidelines is strong.--Kubigula (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- David Entinghe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Does not meet notability standards? AngielaJ 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability not established through reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest of Keeps http://www.cosmopolitan.com/hot-guys/bachelors/05bachelors/OHIO_BACHELOR_O5 and while I personally can't stand Cosmo, they meet wp:rs easily. Yes, the other sources are weak but real enough, so it isn't bogus. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I still say delete. It's barely an article and does not signify notability. There are links in the article but those are not reliable sources. If you can find reliable sources like a newspaper article or a magazine that don't focus on his pecs then I can say keep.AngielaJ 22:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angielaj (talk • contribs)
- I agree with your assessment that its barely an article and may not signify notabiltiy but (i hate to say it...) Cosmo does meet wp:rs, and the focus on "pecks" isn't a standard in wp:rs. Lets keep our policies clear and reasons legit. Pharmboy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only a small feature though, not even an article. Also in the guidelines for notability there must be several sources and they must be varied. I'm sorry but a quasi-feature in a fashion magazine doesn't cut it. It needs more sources to cite if you want to prove notability AngielaJ 04:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment that its barely an article and may not signify notabiltiy but (i hate to say it...) Cosmo does meet wp:rs, and the focus on "pecks" isn't a standard in wp:rs. Lets keep our policies clear and reasons legit. Pharmboy (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable non-encyclopedic biography. --Lockley (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
- Northwind Highlanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Relisting on AFD as outcome of a bundled nomination. Article is an in-universe treatment of a fictional group in the Battletech universe lacking citations to support verifiability or notability. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator of original bundle. Pagrashtak 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
- Brynglas House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article lacks reliable sources to show notability, prod removed by creator, with the comment, "Which is surely why it is a good idea to start the article here, with links to the local area and where it is, so that local people can go into it and edit it?!?" FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Notability unestablished. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability per WP:N or merge with main Newport, South Wales article. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable unless someone can provide some references. Nuttah (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
- Georgeann Walsh Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Her "notability" is that she sued someone famous. Perfect example of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Frankly, even the 1 event that arguably gives her notability isn't terribly notable. It certainly doesn't need to have its own article, although I suppose it merits a line in the Gene Simmons article if its not all ready there. Xymmax (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's there. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Rock City. NN he-said she-said resulting from an otherwise unnotable TV program. Wikipedia is not STAR magazine. --Dhartung | Talk 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Gene Simmons as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:21, December 23, 2007
- The Adelphian Society of Fitchburg State College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This organization appears to be local in scope, and lacks reliable independent sources that would verify notability. Prod removed by creator, who added sources, but not sources that, in my opinion, established notability. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article lacks sufficient notability and independent verifiability as prescribed in WP:N & WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Merge into Fitchburg State College. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG. The sources provided are insufficient: two Yahoo! groups, a list with a link to one of those Yahoo! groups, an almost empty directory listing, and a college alumni publication that mentions the organization in only two sentences. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. Tyrenius (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BIO - a local councillor who has no other claim to fame or notability. Was uploaded in toto by a new user in June 2007 who has made no other edits to the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 17:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the fact that a new user uploaded this in full should not influence this AfD. Making a decision on that would be making a bad faith assumption. Joshdboz (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision would not be made on that basis - it's not a deletion criterion - but having all the information available to make a decision never hurts. If the article had been significantly edited by others since I would also have noted this. Orderinchaos 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed disclosure is good, just wanted to make sure it didn't lead to knee-jerk deletion support. Joshdboz (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The decision would not be made on that basis - it's not a deletion criterion - but having all the information available to make a decision never hurts. If the article had been significantly edited by others since I would also have noted this. Orderinchaos 03:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A mere member of a municipal council, this is not generally enough to guarantee notability. The cited sources, which look impressive, do not assert notability. Of the 12 sources, 5 only show electoral results. Anther two are published by his party and are therefore not independent of the subject. Other than arguably this article, none of the Age articles or the Leader article have Mr. Sekhon as the subject of the article; he is merely commenting on his parties prospects or only tangentially mentioned and this is not sufficient to assert notability. Even the linked article is more about Green policies than Mr. Sekhom. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Created by a WP:SPA. —Moondyne 03:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, if he really is the longest-serving Green politician in Victoria, that's notable to my mind. Problem is that there's no sources attesting to that that I can find. Lankiveil (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete if he's that notable as a green candidate then I'm sure his name is all through the article on the Greens party in Victoria... cited references are about other events / his party not him, and he does not meet any of the "inherently notable" elements at WP:BIO.Garrie 23:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BTW, the Greens website does not show that he is the longest serving elected rep - only that he was the first Green candidate elected to represent an electorate in "proportional representation" elections (vs senate-style candidates).Garrie 23:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to have been the subject of coverage from reliable sources independent of him (two of said sources being cited in the article). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This still does not address notability concerns - he is a local council representative and an organiser for a minor party, and WP:BIO clearly requires state or federal representation (else I and no doubt others would be eligible for an article). Orderinchaos 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I believe you're misreading WP:BIO. It doesn't require statewide or national representation to be considered notable, it requires such representation to be considered inherently notable (i.e. automatically notable). Any subject can still be found notable by reason of the WP:N criterion of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but it has to have a very strong claim on another ground, which it doesn't. A lot of things happen or exist which are reliably sourcable (even extensively) in popular media but don't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. For the record, I appear in 11 reliable sourcs, 4 of which have me as a subject, but nothing about me is notable and that will probably continue to be the case for some time. Orderinchaos 11:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I believe you're misreading WP:BIO. It doesn't require statewide or national representation to be considered notable, it requires such representation to be considered inherently notable (i.e. automatically notable). Any subject can still be found notable by reason of the WP:N criterion of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. That's what applies here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This still does not address notability concerns - he is a local council representative and an organiser for a minor party, and WP:BIO clearly requires state or federal representation (else I and no doubt others would be eligible for an article). Orderinchaos 10:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect I only see one article significantly about Sekhon which is independent of the Greens. The Leader reference is sadly misrepresented as saying that he is professionally a project coordinator, when in fact all the article says is that (as a councillor) he is coordinating one project.Garrie 01:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Being the national and state convenor and the state election director of a significant and increasingly successful political party probably makes him notable in his own right. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how a purely administrative role makes anyone notable. Orderinchaos 07:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can see how this might be a borderline case for notability, but playing a long but minor role in government does not entail much notability. If he goes on to do more in government, then this article can be recreated. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advert-like biography. No sources to confirm notability, therefore fails WP:N. Nehwyn (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ra2007 (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I believe this page is a verbatim recreation of a previously deleted page. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete perWP:V. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced, non-notable; Google reveals very few results. — Wenli (reply here) 00:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, unsourced and arguably a WP:BLP violation under the circumstances. RFerreira (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haverford Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable street. This article has remained unreferenced for more than six months. Mikeblas (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. County line streets aren't often notable. Having attended Haverford and walked along said street, it's not that important. Besides, the college is more on Lancaster Avenue anyway--that's the street address. Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there is nothing especially noteworthy about this particular street compared to the thousands of other streets in Philadelphia, and it fails to comply with WP:NOTE. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable.Mitch32contribs 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced and not notable. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above — master sonT - C 00:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no claims to notability --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The street that I live on exists. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanessa Abrams(Gossip Girl character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - no reliable sources attest to any real world notability of this individual character. Per WP:FICT characters should be covered in articles for the fiction unless an encyclopedic treatment requires a separate article which is clearly not the case here. Normally I'd say redirect but the parenthetical makes this an improbable search term. Otto4711 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No claim to real-word notablity given in the article. --Nehwyn (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete per not-established notability. I would prefer a redirect, but her appearing in the book as well as the TV series makes this hard. Possibly turn into a disambiguation page. (BTW, Vanessa Abrams redirects to Vanessa Abrams(Gossip Girl character), so not allowing a redirect because of the parenthetical is not really an objection.) – sgeureka t•c 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:FICT and WP:V. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Gossip Girl. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Allahabad Agricultural Institute
- Allahabad Agricultural Institute- Deemed University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete not every institute of every university is notable; this unsourced article has no demonstration that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Redirect to the already existing article, Allahabad Agricultural Institute. Lot of secondary sources talk of this university as seen here -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Redirect to the already existing article, Allahabad Agricultural Institute. The institute is notable and one of the earliest in the country. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 10:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Highly unlikely to be searched for, so it's pointless to redirect. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, in any case, pointless redirects aren't my pet peeve, I'll provide you with a good reason to redirect. It will stop another mistaken editor from "creating" the page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Allahabad Agricultural Institute. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wizardman 18:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Janken Paradise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced one-line article about a video game, no indication that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:STUB. Being an an unsourced one-line article is nothing wrong. Stubs all over the place. What happened to actually improving them instead of deleting? Furthermore, this game is notable and has been covered by reliable Japanse language sources. Ask a Japanese speaker to do a search, and don't delete per WP:BIAS. User:Krator (t c) 10:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Krator. The stub hasn't even been around for a week yet. Yes Wikipedia should monitor and remove excessive content, but this stub hasn't even had the chance to expand past one line, let alone break any guidelines. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, per above. The article should be renominated if not expanded within a month or two. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Stub or not, it has to be sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply OK, Done. -Verdatum (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:STUB. -Verdatum (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:EP. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since being short is not a crime. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: after being here a couple of weeks, there is still no evidence of significant coverage in reliable third party sources showing notability see WP:N, regardless of the vote outcome here as AFD is not a vote. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is has references in a videogame encyclopedia published in Japan. Reference added. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above, no need to hold any kind of WP:BIAS against this stub. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see a junkload of WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:JUSTAVOTE comments in this deletion discussion. It would help if Nihonjoe could come up with better sourcing than a scant mention in a crufty offline encyclopedia. As of yet, I'm not convinced it's noteworthy, so I go with delete, which could be changed to strong delete or keep, depending on what can be said about the sources. For example, does the source simply have a list of thousands upon thousands of video games? If so, it still has to pass our notability guidelines. The Evil Spartan (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get off calling it a "crufty" encyclopedia? Have you ever read it? It's several thousand pages long and has entries for most (if not all) video games released up until it was published. Updated versions of the encyclopedia are published every year, and it gets bigger every year. It's considered one of the top authorities for video games in Japan. Each game has an entry, varying from several hundred to many thousands of words long. The entry for this game is several hundred words long. The source does not have to be notable (though in this case it likely is), just reliable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Google hits I found come from gamespot.com, gamefaqs.com, cheatcodesclub.com and similar - nothing I would refer to as reliable 3rd-party info. It's just a little video game, no article needed. PKT (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google hits are not necessary or even acceptable as a determiner of notability. None of those sites have significant coverage of older systems like the 3DO, so using them as a measuring stick is useless. Besides, GameFAQs and CheatCodesClub are not reliable sources, and GameSpot is iffy in many cases. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wizardman 19:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB Has a few links but ones dead, the others seem to be self published or merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Hu12 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per my nom--Hu12 (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat tentative keep. I have added a couple of extra references on the page. It is true that a lot of the google hits are to blogs or related non WP:RS, but there are a significant number of college and university student publications that have articles about it. Many more than the two I have included. I am inclined, in spite of my mild-deletionist tendencies, to think that if there are a significant number of secondary sources that are run by the people who are the intended users of the web site, it probably is notable, even though the secondary sources are not exactly high class. Happy to read other's opinions though. Anarchia (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ghits establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is established by the references provided in the article. Everyking (talk) 08:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Articles establish notability. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brandon T. Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This person does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, who added sources, but not reliable independent sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added two external sources. They are both profiles of Mitchell and company. These sources are similar to imdb profiles, which I am sure you accept. Btm1000 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Have you read the reliable sources guidelines, as I suggested, yet? What is needed are articles about this person that were not written by this person or his employer; profiles that he has submitted to various web sites are not the kinds of sources that are needed. Instead, you need to add links to a few of the newspaper and magazine articles that have been written about him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Brandon T. Mitchell (we can call him BTM for short) is an article created by User:Btm1000, who has also, in his short editing career, also helpfully added Brandon T. Mitchell to the list of Current and Former Notable students of Devon Preparatory School [37]. Amazing coincidence. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It should be speedily deleted. No independent third-party reliable sources given. Dekisugi (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability and no independent verifiability. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Acknowledgement of conflict of interest If you want to delete it, be my guest. I'm being paid by his company for it either way.Btm1000 (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; likely the author is also the subject of the article. Website appears to be amateur, adding to the liklihood that this is self-promotion by the 17 year old subject of the article. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He's promoting the South Langley Evangelical Fellowship? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Promoting himself and/or his website via this article. He admits that he's at least paid by the website creator above. I think that settles it unless other notability can be established. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - admitted advertisement/spamming. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure advertising. ScarianTalk 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this obvious advertisement. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not authorize anyone to make a wikipedia page for me. I apologize for any inconvenience that this has caused. Someone who had access to my computer came on and created the account which was used to create this article. Please delete the article.
Best, Brandon Mitchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.12.63 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete. The IP above resolves to Philidelphia, so it may well be the real Brandon Mitchell. Between that request, the lack of his having done anything that would let us presume notability, and the complete lack of reliable sources, I think this one is safe to delete a few days early. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirected to Deep Run High School where there is already a paragraph about the band. BLACKKITE 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deep Run Marching Wildcat Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This high school marching band does not appear to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page should not be deleted because the Deep Run High School Marching Band is very important. It marched in the London New Year's parade, representing Virginia's Jamestown, Englands first permanent settlement. Also, there are many other wikipedia pages that have information on College and High School bands so there should be no reason for deleteing this page. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 16:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This opinion to keep is by the article creator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant that the vote to keep is by the creator. Mykej (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply You might find it helpful to carefully read the notability criteria for musicians. Which specific part of these criteria does this band meet? What three independent sources can you add that will confirm that? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable; WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS not a valid argument for retention (we should be deleting it too). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article that lacks sufficient notability as prescribed in WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) Mh29255 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly delete - article is not notable per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. There is nothing remotely notable about this particular high school marching band as it has been doing what every other U.S. high school marching band has been doing for decades: competing & performing both domestically & abroad. Related article about this high school band's director has already been deleted. Mh29255 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough Mykej (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added more sources -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - legitimate sources were few and far between, and all local. There is nothing unique (WP:N) about the staff or this band. The Band Director has a page, which is about to be speedily deleted. I am a former mrching band member, and this band has done nothing unique (sorry to say that ... the trip to London is cool, but not unique). LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article for the band's director has been speedily deleted. Mh29255 (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
**Keep - how is it not unique? This band has represented Virginia for its 400th year. It was selected from a pool of hundreds of Virginia HIgh School Bands. That's just like saying the queen visiting Virginia wasn't important. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This is the second comment to keep the article by the article's creator. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment If some irrelevant foreign wearer of pointy hats visited Virginia (I'll assume she did; no reason for you to lie about it), it certainly would not be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are thousands of individual high school marching bands in the U.S., many of which perform in various civic parades & professional sporting events. Hence, there is nothing notable about this particular high school marching band that is doing what thousands of other bands are doing. Mh29255 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentThis was on an international level, not a local level. The 400th year of Virginia is important because James town was the first permanent English Setlement. It is such a huge deal that the Queen of England visited. This band was chosen to visit London to represent Virginia. It is a big deal for Virginian history. -1337donald
- Comment And you think that this particular high school marching band is the only marching band to ever perform outside of the U.S.? Sorry, but that's been going on for decades and is not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One reason that the conflict of interest guidelines ask us not to create articles about our own bands, is that we all find it difficult to accurately estimate how important our own groups are. In this case, you have overestimated the importance of your marching band, which, while no doubt very good, is less important than the bands that an encyclopedia needs articles about, bands like the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. Notice the kinds of sources that article has. Can you add similar sources to this article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still do not see why this article is considered for deletion. It has met requirements on WP:MUSIC.
7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city;
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.
-1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment #8 is for notable styles and local music scenes; this is just another school band; #9 is for major music competitions, not the kind of school band competitions that take place by the hundreds every year (my little sister used to be in those). Face it, donald, you're too close to the subject and have lost perspective. I hope the Wildcats do well; but they're just not notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Marching in a 400th year parade is a notable accomplishment. There are some bands out there that are prominent, just like the Deep Run Band, who do not get to march in notable parades (Cavalier Marching Band) -1337donald
- You've now fully explained why you think this band is notable, and you've added the sources that you think prove it. You don't need to add any more comments to this discussion now, unless you find a new source that you want to draw attention to. If your band truly is notable, that will be clear from your reasoning and your sources, even to someone who isn't a member. If it isn't, then further comments won't change the evidence. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN per WP:BAND Mayalld (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge (selectively merge) to the article Deep Run High School which already mentions the band. The refs in this article fail to prove notability by lacking independence from the subject, by not being reliable sources, or by being mere directory listings. Sounds like a fine band, and should be appropriately mentioned in the article about the high school . School pride does not trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is too much information to just have a small mention on the school page. It should have its own page so that much more information can presented. -1337donald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1337donald (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another viewpoint is that there is too much info in the present article, relative to the notability of the band. A few sentences in the school's article would be sufficient to tell Wikipedia readers what they should know about this fine high school band. Edison (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable. Falls well short of WP:MUSIC. Nuttah (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising that would have to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopaedia article amongst many other failings. Given that in revision #178496882 Isa gajre (talk · contribs) signed xyr name as "Roy W. Blain" in the article, it's reasonable to conclude that this is the very Roy W. Blain who sells CDs and books about what the article discusses. That the article is full of peacock terms such as how the subject is "ideal" and "will cost a fraction", and how readers should have "little doubt" that the subject has "a major advantage" that nothing else can equal, adds to the blatant aspect. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard for promoting products. All Wikipedia content must be written from the Neutral point of view. There are those who oppose spelling reform. Wikipedia articles must not take sides in the debate and must not be promotional of one person's idea and products. In fact, single person's ideas don't belong here until the rest of the world has acknowledge them, per our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for standing upon. Lastly, articles in the English Wikipedia must be written in English. This isn't. It's written using the invented lexicon that it is promoting, which just adds to the fact that the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tagged it as CSD and the creator removed the CSD tags. I tagged it with a number of issue tags, and the creator removed those. Someone else prod'ed it, which was also removed. I'm not in the mood to fight with the user, so I'll just send this over to AFD and let the community offer their opinions on this. Original research and no sources are amongst the more obvious issues. Yngvarr 15:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete by all means. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a new concept. I PRODded it, and before doing that I looked for sources; I found nothing except various attempts to promote the reform in various places. If all original research is removed from the article, what would remain would be "Saaspel is a proposed spelling reform of English based on pronunciation" - it's not even possible to find out which pronunciation they are basing it on. Also note that the author has added external links to the Saaspel site from a couple of other articles on spelling reform. --Bonadea (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Those who manage to persevere all the way to the end of this barely comprehensible essay (even though they don't face any distractions on the way in the form of references etc) find it helpfully signed by one Roy W. Blain. Fails as OR, among various other things. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. It's mentioned at Dunkin' Donuts#Products, but why a separate article is warranted remains unclear to me. PROD was removed with comment: "Remove from proposed deletion as appears notable". I disagree. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A single type of chilled beverage is highly unlikely to have substantial coverage in independent sources sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is some media coverage. I haven't had a chance to look at everything yet, though. Zagalejo^^^ 22:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DrinkDelete - As fine as an icy fruity collata is on a hot day, this product has not acheived WP:N like (for example) a Big Mac or a Whopper. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per lifebaka . --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this product doesn't contain enough notability to stand on its own. Alternatively, redirect to Dunkin' Donuts. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This single product isn't notable enough to have its own article. — Wenli (reply here) 00:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Lots and lots of GNews hits, over 200 giving its history, its marketing, and other information. All the requirements needed for Wikipedia, just like an other article on a product. See: [38] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Straightforward product spam, borderline G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 05:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes no sense. Can you rephrase that in English please? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He means he thinks it's an advertisement. Spacepotato (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Reliable sources appear to exist, but the article needs serious cleanup to make it less ad-sounding. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG DELETE/CleanupNo sources are mentioned and a lot of cleanup needed such as to include sources on page.--Quek157 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since apparently there are ample sources available, the article is already off to a great start. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; adequate press coverage of this product available, as a Google News search will show. Spacepotato (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that there's enough coverage to warrant an article independent of the manufacturer. Also, quite a few of thos Google hits seem like republished press releases to me. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there a frozen pureed coffee beverage article to merge/redirect this to? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a merge to Dunkin' Donuts would fit, but I don't see why an extended "nutrition information" section or ingredients list is worth any merging. We're not a product catalog. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Some reliable sources are proving its notability.So, it's not spam at all--NAHID 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or possibly merge w/ Dunkin Donuts, the sources are available so as long as the information is available either one will suffice. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article needs cleanup, that's why it is tagged. AfD is not cleanup, and other sources seem to exist. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Salvatori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The article certainly gives no indication of it, but looking for this guy online I found no secondary sources to confirm his notability; he's mentioned with Marty O'Donnell or not at all. David Fuchs (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that there's probably not enough material for a standalone article. However, this is a plausible search term, since, as you said, he is mentioned as co-composer of the Myth and Halo series soundtracks. Any ideas for a suitable redirect target? — TKD::Talk 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Tricky one. He has done enough to be borderline notable, but the sources aren't there to back this up. I therefore suggest we keep the article for a time and see if it gets improved or if sources appear, and we revisit this question in, say, six months. A1octopus (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been around for months, with next to no actual content being added since the day of creation. David Fuchs (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Co-composer of multiple notable soundtracks. Verifying that much is easy, hence notability is verified. -- Masterzora (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Suggest prod in the future if page isn't helped out within several months. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead-end disambig page, nothing on it has a link so it serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
The Josiah Strong book should probably have its own article, based on a quick Google Scholar search. Might as well use the page as a redirect to Josiah Strong for the time being.Eh, I'll go with Keep, per Uncle G. The song seems more notable than I intially thought it was, so this page can probably stay as it is. Zagalejo^^^ 22:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect, which is what the page originally was when I created it. I agree with Zagalejo that the book should probably have its own article. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 01:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not stylistically perfect for a disambiguation article, but it appears to be a perfectly normal one that is disambiguating between the aforementioned book and a song by the same name, where each, in the absence of the other, would be a redirect to another article at this title. That's exactly the function of disambiguations. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete - fails to provide any sources to substantiate notability. I suggest editors spend more time on looking for them and less time expressing their own views on the matter. Tyrenius (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sony Ericsson W960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable phone. This one is unreleased, and has no references to substantiate its feature claims or it's notability -- so it's just crystal balling. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Just a list of features, so it reads like an advert. {{prod}} removed without comment by User:68.60.168.2, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is actually released, and needs some cleanup/expansion rather than deletion. WATP (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog of electronic gadgets, and this article lacks any references other than the manufacturer's sites to show it satisfies the Wikipedia notability requirements per WP:N. Edison (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per WATP --Frodet (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mikeblas. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a bunch of indescriminate information (on purpose). Pharmboy (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since the phone is plenty notable (how many thousands of people own one?) and yes we are a catalogue of many different things including television shows, record albums and singles, films, and mobile phones too. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ownership does not notability make. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on similar things to what Coccyx Bloccyx said. Wikipedia seems to be a catalog of everything and just about every other phone is listed, what makes this one special? It definitely could use a nice summary and some cleanup to look more like other mobile phone articles. Megaversal (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:WAX. Plenty of phone articles have been deleted; why are you considering the ones that haven't yet been deleted instead of the ones that already are? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I read WP:WAX and then WP:NOT and I'm trying to find a consensus on why generic reference information (camera lenses, mobile phones, whatever) should or should not be included. If you could provide one, I would appreciate being able to make a more informed vote. As it stands, it seems to me that Wikipedia is appropriate as a reference of basic information like mobile phone specifications. Megaversal (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer'. WP:NOT#DIR #2 and #3 are applicable. WP:NOT#STATS, too. WP:PRODUCT explains that commercial products should get their own pages if they are notable; WP:N explains that notability is achieved using references to substantial works. wp:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, applies, too, and is helpful in understanding why every product that gets a 400-word capsule review on a couple of websites isn't notable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I read WP:WAX and then WP:NOT and I'm trying to find a consensus on why generic reference information (camera lenses, mobile phones, whatever) should or should not be included. If you could provide one, I would appreciate being able to make a more informed vote. As it stands, it seems to me that Wikipedia is appropriate as a reference of basic information like mobile phone specifications. Megaversal (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:WAX. Plenty of phone articles have been deleted; why are you considering the ones that haven't yet been deleted instead of the ones that already are? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The phone is notable, and this is not the forum for cleanup. RFerreira (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Has anyone read wp:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary? In 20 years will this model of phone be 'notable'? Notability isn't a temporary thing, or it isn't notable at all. Pharmboy (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The notability of this phone is not temporary and I do believe that this will serve as a handy reference point in the long term. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the article does not assert notability. The source does not assert notability. Shouting that it does, and, pointing at other stuff that exists (for now), doesen't change that. SQLQuery me! 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, even though this is heading hard for a no consensus. This is not notable.--CastAStone//(talk) 21:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merged to Locations in His Dark Materials. --Tone 21:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article asserts no notability through referencing, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition of elements of the Dark Materials books plot sections, and is thus duplicative of those sections. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to His Dark Materials. I don't think it is notable enough for its own article, but seems fine to be merged into this much broader topic. jj137 ♠ Talk 23:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge along with any other HDM locations to a new Locations in His Dark Materials article Cassandra Leo (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cassandra Leo to new Locations in His Dark Materials. At present there is only Jordan College, Oxford; merging that will be a good opportunity to strip out its non-notable content. There are other locations that could be added, once the articles are converted to a single list. The list will satisfy notability, as it is sufficient that the concept i.e. "location" is notable. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a article on the locations in general, as Faynetic suggests. The nom seems to thinks only plot significant in fiction, but I disagree--so is settings and many other things. There will be some overlap with plot elements but for some purposes an organisation this way is clearer. Personally, I think there will eventually be materials to expand it back into separate articles, but not yet. DGG (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Merge in the absence of new information. --Thinboy00 @329, i.e. 06:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge with Under My Skin.--Kubigula (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. All such pages should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAnteaterNot (talk • contribs) 2007/12/09 02:39:39
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Under my Skin or Avril Lavigne as Wikipedia is not the place to recap musical concert tours. --JForget 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Obviously the performer is notable, but there's been no similar showing for the tour. Xymmax (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge same as her other tours.. i'll do so if you want :) Darth NormaN (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge and redirect. Tyrenius (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delphia Hankins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Another non-notable very old person. The 214-word "obituary" cited is little more than a verbose funeral notice, and a google search threw up only only two more refs in reliable sources: [39] and [40], both of which are also just slightly-expanded funeral notices. Without any substantial coverage, she fails WP:BIO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep don't want to tag them all, but there are links to be found. Not all are NYT but good grief, this was the late 1800s when they were born. My mom doesn't have a birth certificate and she was born in the 30s, so its not that odd. Per my others, oldest is noteworthy. Pharmboy (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the fact of someone being that old is of course noteworthy, which is why we have lists of such people. However, a standalone article requires us to establish notability per WP:BIO, for which we need not just links, but substantial coverage in reliable sources, and my checks have not found any (though there are plenty of mentions in wikipedia mirrors and other such unreliable sources). Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, if you believe that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, please can you give us some links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment bio says "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" so "substantial coverage" is only one standard, it is not the only standard. Also, notability is not always a valid arguement to delete anyway, via wp:Notability/Historical/Arguments and because wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think you have to cut a little bit of slack with wp:rs when you are talking about something over 100 years old, or someone. Pharmboy (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply the fact of someone being that old is of course noteworthy, which is why we have lists of such people. However, a standalone article requires us to establish notability per WP:BIO, for which we need not just links, but substantial coverage in reliable sources, and my checks have not found any (though there are plenty of mentions in wikipedia mirrors and other such unreliable sources). Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence, if you believe that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, please can you give us some links? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per U.S. state holder. Since this person is on tables, I could sleep fine at night knowing this person has her own article. Neal (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians, where this information can be kept with other seminotable supercentarians. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the bottom:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merged and Redirected to List of American supercentenarians#Mae Harrington. BLACKKITE 12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mae Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Yet another unreferenced stub on a very old person. A google search throws up no reliable sources, let alone non-trivial coverage therein, so she fails WP:BIO. She is listed in List of the oldest people, which is quite sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Nothing here that couldn't be summarized in the many supercentenarian lists. Cheers, CP 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I found http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm and others pretty fast, and we do have many other articles on similar people. See Oldest people for a whole lotta wikilinks to oldest people. Needs citations, not deleting. Pharmboy (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The http://www.grg.org/Adams/USStateOldest.htm ref is just a list of dates, age, sex and race, which is fine for verifying the facts, but is too trivial to establish notability per WP:BIO. I know that google search throws up hits on blogs, wikipedia mirrors etc, but if there is to be a standalone article we need substantial coverage in reliable sources, and so far we haven't got it. The claim that her longevity record was only recognised after her death makes me think that any substantial coverage is unlikely, because usual news reporting of these people is either an obituary or a soft-news piece in the the last years of their life, and that doesn't seem likely to have happened in this case. "Needs citations" is true, but in this case there appear not to be any available. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did find one newspaper article about her on Newsbank. It doesn't show up on Google News, but it does exist:
- Jonas Kover. "Clinton woman's 'everyday' life ends at age 113 in nursing home". Observer-Dispatch. January 1, 2003. Section A, Page 01. Zagalejo^^^ 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done with the search, but an obituary in a county newspaper falls well short of the "substantial" coverage required by WP:BIO. If more substantive refs are found at a later date, the article could of course be recreated, but right now there isn't enough to justify an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I milked what I could out of that. Not sure if that's enough... Zagalejo^^^ 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per country holder. I would like Wikipedia to be an archive of reliable sources anyways. Neal (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete The refs mentioned in the article or in this AFD are mere obituaries or directory listings and do not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO. Getting to be really old existing in a nursing home does not justify an encyclopedia article. Inclusion in a list of old people is appropriate and sufficient. Edison (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and try and add more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 23:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply'. There is no evidence so far that any coverage exists other than trivial, directory-style coverage and one short obit in a county newspaper, so waiting for more refs may be like waiting for Godot. If substantial coverage in reliable sources is found at a later date, a new article can of course be written. Right now, the only verifiable info in the article is what can be found in lists such as those maintained by GRG, and per WP:BIO that's not enough for a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. This person is no more notable than anyone else on that list. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. As per users "Pharmboy", "NealIRC" and "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )", plus she was the oldest living American and is in the top 100 all time. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy has voted either "strong keep" or "very strong keep" on every AfD on a very old person in which he has participated in the last few months: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Bart, is there any way in which this particular "very strong keep" is different from the others? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't speak for Bart, but no, there is no difference. We (him and I) value the supercentenarians by age and rank pretty equally. ;D Neal (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Note User:Bart Versieck/Extremely sexy has voted either "strong keep" or "very strong keep" on every AfD on a very old person in which he has participated in the last few months: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Bart, is there any way in which this particular "very strong keep" is different from the others? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -I think that being the oldest person in the US is reasonably notable. WP:BIO allows for exceptions and I am happy if this is one. TerriersFan (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Everything here is unreferenced and the only notable content is a sentence describing that the subject was once the 4th oldest person in the world. If someone wants to merge that elsewhere, I won't stop them. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Henry Hartmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Currently unreferenced article on a very old American. I have found only this one reference in a reliable source, and apart from that a google search throws up only bulletin boards etc. The lone reference is rather trivial, so the article falls well short of WP:BIO. I suggest trimming the article to remove the unreferenced material and merging what's left to List of American supercentenarians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge No substantial independent, reliable sources to establish meeting WP:N or WP:BIO. Cheers, CP 20:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. "Fourth oldest man" is a specious title with no import. Edison (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. He is notable nevertheless, even if he hadn't made it to 110, as a CEO of a corporation. Extremely sexy (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable. Getting a piece in the local paper or being a CEO are not automatic notability proof. Nuttah (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians per BrownHairedGirl. With all respect to the late (very late) Mr. Hartman. --Lockley (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians--CastAStone//(talk) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to List of American supercentenarians. My view is that that people who have been the oldest person in the world, or of a significant country, are notable enough for their own article. However, this guy has never achieved either of these distinctions. Therefore a full merge, with the addition of the sources identified by BrownHairedGirl, is a good way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Women Writers and the Female Experience during the American Industrial Revolution in Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
[edit]- Women Writers and the Female Experience during the American Industrial Revolution in Betty Smith’s A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
OR essay. Dlohcierekim 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to be a copy-pasted college essay. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR, essay, and NN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inexperienced editor, who first created this article at posting an article on wikipedia. I did post a note about how to make a first article, as well as explaining the issues with the current article, also linking to the existing article A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (novel), suggesting that they work on that using material if they have sources. I also explained why the header that they turned into the title was not an appropriate article name, but I am guessing they did not take the time to read my note. While sources are given, there are no inline citations, and it would appear to be, as suggested above, a self-written essay of some kind, but does not seem to provide any real context. Ariel♥Gold 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Original Research (college paper or something of the sort). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:OR and I think based on the comments: WP:SNOW. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a personal essay full of OR and first person (and one heck of a long title too, but that's not really relevant). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a high-school essay or something of the sort. Half of it is made up of a single quote from the novel, and the other half doesn't say all that much about women writers or the female experience during the Industrial Revolution (&c). This isn't worth a standalone article (A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (novel) is rather short as it is), and I don't see anything here which could usefully be merged to the existing article. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted per nom--Quek157 (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete both g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Were both up for speedy as spam, though notability has been asserted, by the same editor (an internet solutions company) and both articles serve the same purpose, brought here for consensus.
- Delete as spam. No asserted notability, just hits. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete both as blatant spam. Should have been left as a speedy, since claim of notability has no validity. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn per rewrite of article, nominator has changed !vote to "keep" and no "delete"s were placed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kazoo Funk Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article reads more like a brief promotion. They are an unsigned band with no notable musicians, tours, albums, or songs. I'm guessing one of the members wrote the articles. This fails WP:MUSIC, and I propose it be deleted. Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-expansion, the band's notability is more apparent, due to the former band member's notability, the radio play, etc... Keep Manderson198(sprech)/(contribs) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Response In response to your proposal to delete The Kazoo Funk Orchestra, I beg to differ...
According to the criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music), this band should be considered notable.
- It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.
- Featured Article in the Evening Times (Scottish Newspaper) - Printed and Online
- Reviewed twice in Is This Music? (UK Music Magazine) - Printed
- Appeared in Art Uber Ales (Greek TV Show)
- Featured in the soundtrack of Trailer Trash (Skateboard Video by CREME Skateboards)
- Appeared on the Your Sound - Best of Term One compilation album released by King Tut's Recordings
- Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.
- Toured the UK earlier this year (Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Bristol, Chepstow, Sheffield, Inveraray, Dundrennan, Leicester, Fairlie).
Does this not satisfy the criteria? (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2007 (EST)
- I agree, that would likely satisfy the criteria. If you could include these references in the article, it would be greatly appreciated, and likely increase the chances of the article passing this Afd with a result of keep. As is, the article has no such citations. -Verdatum (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The added sources seem to confirm this band's notability. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 01:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced, unencyclopedic, non-notable - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. I don't see any way in which this article could be brought up to standard. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless author can somehow find reliable sources about this game (i couldn't). JaakobouChalk Talk 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Another non-notable drinking game made up as another way to achieve inebriation. —Travistalk 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my cobalt, green and grey colleagues above. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My, we are a colorful bunch, aren't we? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete played it this weekend and it still did not meet notability guidelines. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per "Wikipedia is not a directory of drinking games we made up one day". Pharmboy (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : not notable per WP:N, no references provided per WP:V and may be WP:MADEUP. Mh29255 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete maybe? It's still definitely WP:NFT. There have probably been several hundred drinking game AfDs in the history of Wikipedia now...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (keep). Keilana 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although normally I'd tag things like this A7 without hesitation, I'm not so sure about this one so bringing it over here for a full discussion, as I don't think we really have a clear policy on this sort of thing. Is this deletable as a article on a non-notable club with no raliable sources, or does the "competition at the highest level" notability criteria apply to virtual as well as real sports? I really can't make my mind up on this one, so this is a true procedural nomination and I abstain from voting either way. Note that although this has already been deleted, the deleted version is different (and the first AfD looks to me more like a "no consensus" than a "delete", anyway) so bringing it over for a fresh discussion. — iridescent 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - I would have tagged this as a G6, but since you want to talk about it again, I'll bite. This article fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:WEB, and WP:V. Jauerback (talk) 20:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending reliable sources. IMHO, "electronic" sports can be as skilful and rigorous as chess or snooker, so top players/teams/tournaments are notable. As for sources, I already found this about the retirement of the team, and presumably if they did win or come close runners up in any of the tournaments, it should be verifiable. Well written otherwise so give it a week or two for sources to appear. Moyabrit (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This team was pretty big, I remember seeing coverage of them on tourney websites back in the day, which I consider to be the electronic equivalent of traditional sports coverage. I can probably dig up coverage of their matches or an interview, if I look hard enough. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References (courtsey of csnation.net and gotfrag.net: Interview with Bigwie, one of their members at the time. Some controversy about a match they played when they had an unfair/deliberate disadvantage, looks like there was some official word from CAL about this and a rematch. Concerns that zEx wouldn't be able to make it to the CPL. Article about the teams retirement. Article about a roster change and team refocus. Interview with the team. I think these are sufficient to demonstrate notability within professional esports. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Convinced of notability by the above sources. No bias against "cyberathletes". User:Krator (t c) 13:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article's references are all trivial; while the ones provided above by NickPenguin are better, they still don't amount to much more than blog postings. Sure, there's mention of the subject, but they don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability, and since the article itself mentions that this group no longer exists, it's unlikely that they'll be gaining in importance in the future. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would contend that the two sites I drew those articles from (csnation.net and gotfrag.net) are more than just blogs. I consider these to be reliable and longstanding (six or seven years at least) sources within the community, and over the years they have given significant coverage Counter-Strike and the involvement/development of CS and professional esports. Although I do admit this may not be widely known, especially if you don't find competitive gaming particularly interesting. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Have to say I didn't expect to say so, but find myself convinced by NickPenguin's sources. Pastordavid (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenneth Laisi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No secondary sources establishing notability. The only link leads to a site selling his art. I tried in vain to find anything that established notability but everything I could find online was either a mirror of wikipedia or the same sort of 'biographical sketch' used on a page to sell items. If someone has a big old history book on the Zimbabwe sculpture industry, prove me wrong. Epthorn (talk) 07:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The pages "to sell items" that you mention show galleries in Africa, America and Europe offering his work, some listing his name as one of their "top" or "featured" artists. Galleries "sell items" in the same way that sports fixtures "sell tickets": they're not just businesses, they're part of deciding who counts as notable in their field. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that but the fact that they stand to make a profit off of him means that we cannot necessarily trust that the are independent, 3rd party sources now can we? Take this sentence, for example: "Kenneth's ambition is to become one of Zimbabwe's leading and talented artists and up-lift the up-coming generation of artists." That does not inspire confidence. There are books and magazines that are independent of sales which COULD be used to decide notability.Epthorn (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on current showing - notability not asserted. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to gain more participation. Also notifying article creator, who has so far not been told. --Tyrenius (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, no need to continue this. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article was already speedily deleted, but I restored to seek community discussion. As of now, I have no opinion on the merits. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems notable on reading article, reliable sources. Mykej (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appropriate sources for the subject. How this could be thought an A7 escapes me entirely. DGG (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep HTML 5 and the WHATWG have received quite a bit of attention in the software industry, as one might imagine. JavaTenor (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources appear to be good, and the topic has reasonable notability. Tim Ross·talk 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The WHATWG is one of the most important behind-the-scenes players in what the web is going to look like over the next ten years. Is the deleting admin insane? --Polonius (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, this should have never been deleted in the first place (unless there's something I'm missing). RFerreira (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. James086Talk | Email 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reversed my own deletion. Although a new site of questionable notability, the Comedy Central connection may make it notable as some of their people (23/6) are editing it. Dlohcierekim 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 15:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete for now. Someday it might be a notable website. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Gtstricky. Maybe someday, but that isn't a criteria for notability now. Pharmboy (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As usual, someone wonders, "How am I going to get noticed?... I know... let's have an article on me in Wikipedia." And as usual, our response is, "Get noticed some other way, and then we'll give you a Wikipedia entry." Additionally, the page design of the advertized site may qualify as a copyvio, since Wikimedia is not involved. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 00:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. NN website. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case where an AFD has been set up to illustrate a WP:POINT. It was a bit pointless ironically, since whatever the outcome, deletion precedent is that each article is (and would be) assessed on its own merit and not by reference to any other article. So the first thing to say is, whatever the outcome, it is not a precedent for any other deletion. There are also comments suggesting the AFD was filed defensively against an expected deletion by users "going after fancruft". Whether or not such users exist, and whether or not the deletion was filed for that reason (it clearly was), both are irrelevant. This AFD is here now, and is decided on evidence related to policy based reasoning, without either of these stances being relevant.
- Policy relevant points raised -
- third party references exist, including one editorial on "greatest adventures of all time" that rates it as 13th in a list of at least 30;
- concerns that the sources are "trivial low level coverage" and "not reliable secondary sources" by any imagination" (with a rebuttal that even if lowly rated, the coverage exists and is verifiable);
- similar concerns that the content is indifferent or mere product review/gamesite review (but rebuttal that reviews are still valid secondary sources); and
- a proposal to merge or consolidate as notability not established;
- Non policy based points raised -
- "sources exist so it's notable" (the words presumed to be in WP:N have significance);
- it's important, useful or interesting (see WP:IMPORTANT, WP:USEFUL and WP:INTERESTING);
- Google hits (quality matters more than quantity, sometimes helpful, in this case unhelpful: hits seem to be not a tiny or a huge number, and mostly D&D booksellers and D&D fan pages/blogs/infosites/etc);
- WP:BK - not relevant, a module is more than just a "book", its an entire gaming system.
A person submitting their own article to AFD to make a point, needs to be very sure the subject does in fact have the standing claimed, and perhaps this one does. The problem is, the subject's coverage as evidenced is within its own genre, and not outside in any way. It's also (as described below) less than ideal in other ways too.
There are 10 cites in the article, but two just cite its first use, three evidence the usual initial reviews (that all games have, in which it got non-remarkable ratings), four relate to game creatures (etc) used in other games. Of all 10 cites in the article and AFD, just one relates in any way to a claim of notability, and that is from within the genre. In other words, not one cite is produced to show notability beyond its own limited fan circle, and only one to show standing within it.
It's a well known feature of sales and marketing and product reviews/"best of", that many products can claim one award or special mention somewhere or other. Just one product award in one rating system or review, by one magazine, is rarely good evidence by itself, unless the awarding body has some kind of reputation (see below). If a subject is genuinely notable, one would expect repeated evidence of significance, for example independent reviews giving exclusive focus, credible non-fan-circle mentions, etc. Looking at the cites in the AFD and in the article, the only evidence of notability presented at this AFD are 1/ the usual routine mentions, reviews and so on from fan magazines (including being reviewed and rated roughly "avg/avg+" on release) which do not actually evidence notability, and 2/ the single list entry in the "Dungeon" magazine review of D&D games, published as a feature by a fan magazine. That is the sum total of all evidence presented. There are no cites provided, attesting to notability from outside the narrow circle of fan publications; nothing to attest it was a notable game, or product, or module, of any kind, from outside that narrow circle of interest.
Notability criteria include significant mention in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Such sources leads to a presumption that it is notable. Despite a 7 day discussion (more than the normal 5) with many views, we still have no "multiple sources" attesting to "significant mention". We have just one sole mention within its own narrow circle, and none from outside it.
The last question is to look at that "Dungeon" magazine review, and see if that can be enough, alone. It seems from the list of judges that these were chosen for genuine D&D credibility. The panel included reputable game authors, influential reviewers and designers, and presidents and chief editors of D&D publishing companies, in the genre - it is not a trivial collection of opinion-makers, nor is it visibly likely to be partisan or "pushing certain products". So this is good evidence that the game is indeed fairly rated as #13 in its genre. The problem is, we don't know how many games of genuine credibility were rated (or exist) - if there were 30 listed but in fact only 30 credible games that could be considered seriously, then #13 would in fact not prove much. If it was in competition with (say) 200 other credible games, then #13 might be a genuine achievement. And additionally we still lack significant multiple, or non-fan, mentions either way.
So this is the problem. We have no sources evidenced at this AFD to show notability from outside the genre and fan-circles. We have almost no sources showing notability within it. We don't have multiple sources. We have one review but whilst a good one, it's still only one mention and slight, from within its own circle, and there are problems determining what weight to give a rating of #13. These can perhaps all be remedied, but at this point no evidence exists to allow AFD contributors to do so. If new evidence can be found, then there may then be a good case to keep. But at this time it seems clear the evidence provided at this time does not rebut the concerns of those who state notability is an issue.
- DRV overturned the original result outright to no consensus. Xoloz (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwellers of the Forbidden City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Dungeons and Dragons module being claimed as non-notable. I'm bringing this here to establish a precedent that at least some of these modules are notable. Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: two references from unquestionably independent sources, White Dwarf and Different Worlds. The module received significant coverage in both these publications. Also rated as the 13th best adventure of all time and covered in Dungeon while this was edited and owned by Paizo Publishing, an company independent of Tactical Studies Rules and Wizards of the Coast, the original publisher and current copyright holder for this module. This would seem to me to clearly meet the standards required for verifiability and notability, thus there is no reason for deletion. --Pak21 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you get a point for the WP:POINT violation for nominating an article that you support keeping. --Jack Merridew
- Delete — This is a non-notable, game-guide bit of cruft and there are dozens more where it came from. --Jack Merridew 15:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Notability in a nutshell is that "a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". The coverage in White Dwarf and Different Worlds is significant, and both White Dwarf and Different Worlds are unquestionably secondary sources independent of TSR/WotC. Why do you say this is non-notable? --Pak21 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a book, and the reviews and citations from 3 different publications covering the genre are sufficient for it to pass the notability guidelines for books. It needs cleanup of cruft contained within it (the book's TOC? Ah, no) but as the subject of an article, it itself is not cruft. Keep and slap the pointy nominator's wrist for not taking this to more appropriate venue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure exactly what point I'm being accused of trying to make here. That this article contains sufficient sources to mean it is notable? This venue would seem to me to be entirely the most appropriate one for that, as it is where the most knowledgable editors on that subject contribute. --Pak21 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You brought an article to Articles For Deletion with the request that it not be deleted. If you don't want it deleted, don't ask to delete it just to prove a point. There are other, more appropriate venues for getting a discussion on the subject's notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure exactly what point I'm being accused of trying to make here. That this article contains sufficient sources to mean it is notable? This venue would seem to me to be entirely the most appropriate one for that, as it is where the most knowledgable editors on that subject contribute. --Pak21 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The two sources in question say that the game was "a good buy" (at $4.00) and is rated "5/10". I don't think that these qualify as reliable secondary sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are failing to distinguish between what the sources say, and what is quoted in the article. --Pak21 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I can only comment on what is quoted in the article - which is trivial low-qulatity coverage and cannot be intepreted as a reliable secondary source by a long stretch of the imagination, even one as overactive as an RPG enthusiast's. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article includes references to establish notability. White Dwarf and Different Worlds are both reliable secondary sources. Rray (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article needs some cleaning up, but it has sources and more can be found. The module in question was voted as one of the 30 greatest adventures of the first 30 years of D&D by a third party publisher. Web Warlock (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nominating editor has established notability of game book. Now there's an odd one, nominator votes Keep - first time I've seen that. :) Hope this works out for you Pak, instead of backfiring... BOZ (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omgili :-) --Pak21 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would debate there, that the nominator didn't seem entirely sure what should happen with the article. Of course, maybe I'm wrong and this is just the latest new fun trend. ;) BOZ (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omgili :-) --Pak21 (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Delete as pure gamecruft, with indifferent content ("a good buy"? 5/10? C'mon.). Also fails WP:BK. Eusebeus (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming you meant WP:BK, out of curiosity, why don't you think it passes criteria 1? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember "cruft" is not an arguement for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT Web Warlock (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Webwarlock, read the guidelines next time. Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft - vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability - is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "Cruft" is often used as a shorthand term for failure to meet the above criteria, and should not be treated as a bad faith dismissal of the information. However, editors who declare something to be "cruft" should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why it's cruft. - hence gamecruft with indifferent content. Eusebeus (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: however, Dwellers of the Forbidden City has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources (White Dwarf and Different Worlds) and is thus presumed to be notable per WP:N. The fact it didn't receive stellar reviews is neither here nor there when discussing its notability. --Pak21 (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nom.--Robbstrd (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this game guide fails WP:BK. Only an RPG fanatic would assert that a book of game instructions are notable without reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability. Product reviews and fansites are standard fare for all games, and can't be taken as evidence of notability on their own. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Game guide? Where's the instructions? Who is being told how to do what exactly in this article? There's no plot summary, just a quotation of the back cover text (which, perhaps, doesn't belong in the article). I look at WP:BK and find the word "reviews" in criteria 1 for notability. Neither White Dwarf nor Different Worlds were associated with TSR. I added a reference from Wizards of the Coast. Despite User:Pak21's remark, while Wizards of the Coast are the current publishers of D&D, they certainly were not at the time that this game module was published, and were not the publishers of this module in 1981 (I don't think WotC was even a glimmer in the eye of anyone in 1981). That WotC reference's mention of this game module is admittedly brief, but it does back up the claim that this module was first used in a tournament at Origins (which to some, at least, is also a claim to notability). How are any of these three references not secondary sources because of the independence of them from the publishers (TSR)? These sources aren't merely blogs or "fansites" as you mention. Could you clarify for me how this still fails WP:BK, please? Furthermore, the comment that "only an RPG fanatic..." might be bordering on breaching WP:CIVILITY by attempting to disparage others commenting in this AFD. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can you illustrate reliable sources which should cover RPG books outside the field of RPG? That way other editors that is interested in they field can reference their work properly with those you point to. Calling people RPG fanatics does isn't really helping much. For example, I source the bio articles that I created with journals and the video game stubs I fixed with Gamespot and Ign staff reviews and news but not vice versa. Just asking. Since you know what is not a reliable source. Maybe you know what is.--Lenticel (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Product reviews are legitimate reliable secondary sources. I agree that Gavin's comments regarding "RPG fanatics" is a breach of WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure that it's frustrating for Gavin that the consensus doesn't usually agree with his countless tags and AfD's, but that's no reason for namecalling. Rray (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find Gavin's comment uncivil. He may have chosen slightly better language, but I find this tendency to whine about incivility every time someone uses a colorful turn of phrase, depressing. We must aspire to more than an online community of sloughing deltas, RPG fanatics or no. Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gavin does have a history of condescending incivility to those who think differently than he does, so it's nothing new. I try to ignore it and move on. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Collins has either no idea what D&D is, or he's doing it in order to sound condescending. He's about as impartial as Tomas de Torquemada when it comes to RPG articles (which he has tagged in droves). Anyhow, I'm going to !vote
- I don't find Gavin's comment uncivil. He may have chosen slightly better language, but I find this tendency to whine about incivility every time someone uses a colorful turn of phrase, depressing. We must aspire to more than an online community of sloughing deltas, RPG fanatics or no. Eusebeus (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Product reviews are legitimate reliable secondary sources. I agree that Gavin's comments regarding "RPG fanatics" is a breach of WP:CIVILITY. I'm sure that it's frustrating for Gavin that the consensus doesn't usually agree with his countless tags and AfD's, but that's no reason for namecalling. Rray (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a game guide. It's not even sort of a game guide. Please explain. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can you illustrate reliable sources which should cover RPG books outside the field of RPG? That way other editors that is interested in they field can reference their work properly with those you point to. Calling people RPG fanatics does isn't really helping much. For example, I source the bio articles that I created with journals and the video game stubs I fixed with Gamespot and Ign staff reviews and news but not vice versa. Just asking. Since you know what is not a reliable source. Maybe you know what is.--Lenticel (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on this one, on grounds that notability cannot be established. In my opinion, the same is true for nearly all D&D supplements and nearly all in-universe D&D articles. Per Wikipedia guidelines as written the categories in question need to be decimated forthwith. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not in favour of a scorched earth policy involving decimation, but I agree that merger or consolidation of these modules, stock locations, deities, characters (few if any of which have any notability) into a useful list - this would be a big improvement to to RPG articles. Incidently, these modules, adventures and supplements (aka game instructions) do not require experts to divine whether they are notable or not; what they do need are reliable secondary sources to provide evidience that they are significant. This artlicle reads like a review for a favorite book. If article like this keep getting written, Wikipedia will be watered down to a blog of games played by RPG enthusiasts. --Gavin Collins (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you please explain White Dwarf and Different Worlds are not reliable secondary sources? --Pak21 (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have said why above. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, no you haven't since your statements are incorrect. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Nom. (Never thought I'd say that.) Multiple, independant sources have been provided. Edward321 (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Ranked #13 on by time Dungeon Magazine (not owned by the publisher of the module), cites from White Dwarf.Hobit (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Nom. The provided sources are both reliable and sufficient.Shemeska (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do not even see why this is disputed. We all agree (per WP:N etc.) that multiple independent sources imply notability; here there are multiple independent sources, clearluy cited; ergo, the subject of the article is notable. Do I miss something? Goochelaar (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it is because there are a group of editors who are going after "Fancruft". The raw number of "not notable" tags that a few editors have placed on nearly all D&D pages is amazing. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added
76 new references and expaned the History section (was Reception), still have a few more places to look. Web Warlock (talk) 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Comment 3,470 ghits for whatever that's worth. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was doing as nominator suggested, further merges are at editorial discretion. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 22:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethical anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I propose this page be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation page that links to Fred Woodworth/The Match and postmodern philosophy as I don't think either of the uses of this term qualify for their own article. The Woodworth/Match articles are rather small as is and would not be harmed by merging the two lines of info and picture here into them, while the postmodern phil section is already nothing but a disambiguation statement.
This article should be kept and expanded if non-trivial coverage of either of the uses exists in reliabel sources so that we can make a proper full-length article about it. Skomorokh incite 15:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism. Skomorokh incite 15:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Ethical anarchism and The Match with Fred Woodworth. Then create redirects to Fred Woodworth from Ethical anarchism and The Match. Finally, add to Fred Woodworth an inter-wiki link to postmodern philosophy. Argumentation: The articles The Match and Ethical anarchism contains an insufficient amount of material to validate seperate articles from Fred Woodworth. Lord Metroid (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this per Lord Metroid. The concept doesn't appear to have any significant meaning apart from Woodworth's work. --Lockley (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Lord Metroid. The Match! is longer than hundreds of articles about other newspapers and magazines, including many mainstream publications, but it is largely duplicative of what is already at Fred Woodworth. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, ditto everything that's been said. Murderbike (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neopets Items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The article is essentially a catalog of items for Neopets in violation of WP:NOT. A merge to the parent article is not appropriate as this is simply a detailed list of items. The parent article already discusses the concept of Neopet items without a need for an exhaustive list Whpq (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I put prod on it for pretty much the same reasons. The author took it off and I was going to give him a few days to see if he could make the article any better before listing it here. It seems you got there first. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOT#GUIDE WP:NOT#CATALOG, appears to be a stand-alone list, but no explicit selection criteria per WP:SAL. -Verdatum (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. What's the encyclopedic value of this list? andy (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Arbitrary - "Many of these items are listed here, yet not all of them will be" - and useless: there's no explanation of what these items are or what role they play in the game, rendering it of extremely limited value to readers who aren't already familiar with the subject. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps one can ask for more information. It seems someone has gone through a lot of trouble to gain this list and it could prove useful. Although I agree that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate amount of information, the list certainly has some value to it. Perhaps the person can be reminded of other fictional item lists that have been considered helpful for wikipedia users such as list of pokemon (which has been changed from a list to a detailed list) and List of Yu-Gi-Oh! cards in order to have the article rewritten to fit the encyclopedia more.Monkeytheboy (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete useless, unending, and Wikipedia is not a directory. There are almost 26,000 Neopets items, with more added regularly, so yes, this list is beyond arbitrary. Collectonian (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - indiscriminate collection of items that happens to be nothing more than game guide information. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Someone another (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per CSD G3. Article is a hoax. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally speedy deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding that an assertion of notability was present. Still, delete, given concerns over a lack of reliable sources and notability. Xoloz (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure NAHID 18:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may not meet wikipedia's notability criteria Quanticle (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was removed by anon IP without explanation. I believe she fails to meet notability for WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 December 2007
Cruft. Not sourcable. No secondary sources dedicated to the topic. SharkD (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. jj137 ♠ 03:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Kombat Breakers were just runners up, so an article like this isn't really needed i think it should be deleted. (Gotiger13 (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The result was no consensus. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sleep schedule. Appears to be an Everything2 article that became a Kuro5hin article that became a personal weblog, only claiming a "mention as such" in an academic text. (From an Amazon.com search, the Neil Strauss book does not appear to include the word 'Uberman'.) Flagged since July 2007. Looking at the history, it has been prodded before for being an "uninformed clone of Da Vinci sleep". McGeddon (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would anyone really mind if I moved the bulk of Polyphasic sleep to the Uberman article and removed the OR flag from Polyphasic sleep? I've been considering doing so for some time. I think I'll just do it to make the Polyphasic article acceptable. Then most of the Uberman stuff will be in one place, to be discussed further. --Hordaland (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:34, December 23, 2007 AfDs for this article:
Nothing notable that can't be found on Robert_Cialdini#Influence Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Non notable fictional game character Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:34, December 23, 2007 Subject is "the Senior Manager for Operations and Accountability in the CDF Freedom Schools Division at the Children's Defense Fund". While the organisation may be notable, he, personally, is not. Article seems to be a twin of Taj Brown, nominated for deletion 16 December 2007 [50] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation should she gain future notability (or good referencing that she already is becomes available) Not notable purely for her TV appearance. Re-created as protected redirect to Australian Idol for time being.BLACKKITE 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability beyond being placed 11th in Australian Idol. No substantial change to the article since December 2005 when she was apparently recording with a producer [51], so two years have passed, no record deal and nothing to indicate that her notability will increase. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not a plausible spelling for a redirect. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, reads like How-to, could be merged. Created Oct 2006, tagged since Oct 2007 with no changes. ViperSnake151 12:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect and protect. Hut 8.5 18:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sole claim to notability was coming third in NZ Idol one year. The article has three times been redirected to NZ Idol, and three times set back up again. Subject "is working on a diploma for fashion design". AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:33, December 23, 2007 I can't find anything to substantiate the claim that this person is a notable poker player. The only page that shows up in a Google search that appears to be the same person mentioned in this article appears to be self-created. ([52]). Dougie WII (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007
This article appears to be exceedingly Java-specific (and reads as a how-to guide rather than an article). I don't see much here worth salvaging that isn't better said in exception handling. JavaTenor (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under CSD G11. Speedy Deletion - SPAM. Wikipedia is definitely not the right place for such an "article" Speedy Deletion - SPAM. Loukinho (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007
This actor fails WP:BIO; he appeared only in some minor screen roles. Also, this seems a blatant case of autobiography: The only contributor is Collegebound8605 (talk · contribs), and the actor's myspace link is http://www.myspace.com/collegebound8605. The same user also contested the proposed deletion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007
As the introduction says, this is a paper for a college class. Though well-written and interesting, it's unfortunately not an encyclopedia article. It's peppered with original research and some POV, as personal essays tend to be. szyslak 09:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 00:32, December 23, 2007
Appears to be a vanity/ advertising page about a production company that may or may not pass WP:CORP. No sources other than their offical website, possible conflict of interest. Mr Senseless (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|