Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 15

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< 14 April 16 April >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete. The article was deleted (via speedy deletion criterion G7) some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Rodchata Aquino

edit
Rodney Rodchata Aquino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rebirth (Lil Wayne album). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Not Human

edit
I'm Not Human (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources are provided on the main album page that the song will be featured on the album. However, there are no sources confirming or even suggesting the release of this song as a single. Redirect/Delete. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 01:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (procedural completion of AfD - My opinion is Neutral) Tevildo (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness

edit
Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page was created by the person who owns the site (or the wife of the site owner) it seems that it is a way of self promotion. There are many site like this article is about out there so why should this site have one while the others don't. Yourname (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness is a project that has nothing to do with self promotion. James has Asperger's Syndrome and our son has Autism. The project is about raising awareness of Autism, but please delete the page, and James' also. When I wrote the original page for James and Sexy Backs we went through similar and can't be bothered with the fuss this time. Thanks for your time and help, and please accept our apologies for causing any inconvenience caused. We value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, so accept the decision you make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanaprice (talk • contribs) 09:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inayat Karim

edit
Inayat Karim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doubtless notable to those who admire or love the gentleman I can see no proper notability nor verifiability for him.

So far this article has been the most successful of a series of similarly (yet differently) named articles on the gentleman, all introduced by various sockpuppets, now blocked, (see here) and all spamming an eponymous medical centre. All so far have been Conflicts of Interest

It is up to us to determine whether the gentleman is suitable for an article here. I do not believe that he is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can make neither head nor tail of this. It says he was "awarded with Nishan-e-khidmat for his role in the 1960 war." I can't quite figure out what that is, but if it's something like the equivalent of the medal of honor that would establish notability. There seems to be a medical center named after him [1] but it doesn't look like much (there's a picture of it in the article but no text). The original author is an indef-blocked sock, so we can't really ask him for references. All of that said, it seems like there might be something here if someone could just get a reference, but with the article as is, I don't even know where to look. Can anyone find anything on this guy? Cool3 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Google Books, but it only turned up the name of a Bangladeshi foreign secretary and a few other unrelated hits. Regular Google is similarly unhelpful. The only thing I can discern is the medical center thing, which doesn't establish notability in itself. Google News was similarly unhelpful, and LexisNexis didn't turn up any news sources, either. I'd say delete on this basis (no notability). Also, might wanna salt it -- the article's been A7'd three times. Graymornings(talk) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to discover what Nishan-e-khidmat is. It has very few traces in Google which tends to suggest that it is not a significant award, at least when sought in English script. It appears to be a local annual award of a particular Islamic community, though I am happy to be corrected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Price (photographer)

edit
James Price (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by this persons wife.WP:AUTO It might meet the notability a little but it seems that this page was only created to promote the website also. It also seems that the person in the article is none special and should not have a wikipedia page. Yourname (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Sexy Backs for Autism Awareness page. This project has nothing to do with self promotion. James has Asperger's Syndrome and our son has Autism. The project is about raising awareness of Autism, but please delete the page, and James' also. When I wrote the original page for James and Sexy Backs we went through similar and can't be bothered with the fuss this time. Thanks for your time and help, and please accept our apologies for causing any inconvenience caused. We value Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, so accept the decision you make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanaprice (talk • contribs) 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there could be more information added to James Price's biography, then I believe that it is valid on Wikipedia. Also updated via the Sexy Backs for Autism page. Hope this does not get deleted, its a fantastic idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folkestoneflyer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anukul Gita

edit
Anukul Gita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-spam since the article has been around 3.5 years ... which is really surprising, given the tone. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics

edit
Herchel Smith Professorship of Pure Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a gift to Cambridge University that was used to endow a named professorship. So far, this named chair has had only a single holder, Ben Green, in contrast to other similar articles that can be found at Category:Mathematical chairs describing chairs that have existed for a much longer period of time and that have had many notable holders. This article was prodded, but User:Buridan removed the prod with a claim that named chairs at Cambridge are notable regardless of age; I don't believe this is true and I don't believe that Cambridge has any special merit in this regard. According to WP:PROF, holders of named chairs at Cambridge (or other research universities) are notable, but that notability isn't automatically inherited by the chair itself. To me it's as if we had separate articles for Terence Tao (one of Green's collaborators, a clearly notable mathematician) and Terence Tao's Fields Medal (not individually notable separate from Tao or from Fields medals more generally). I have no objection to separate articles concerning endowed chairs with a long history and multiple independently-notable holders of the chair, but this one seems below threshold to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep provided it is clear that this is not a one-off chair for one holder, but a continuing chair. This is not an article on a bequest, but one on a named chair. I strongly hope that "merge all other articles on Cambridge professorships listed there to that list, as well, except for Lucasian Professor of Mathematics" does NOT happen as a result of this debate. It certainly would need more discussion. The existence of many other articles named there is indeed strong support for keeping this article. Named chairs at important universities are likely search terms and they can not easily be redirected anywhere useful. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it can be safely assumed that a named chair in this subject at this university with a permanent endowment will remain notable . I wouldn't extend it to a principle for use elsewhere, for a single holder. I think all continuing chairs at truly famous universities in fields for which they are famous should have individual articles. Combination articles would be possible, but we have no established reliable way to link to sections of combination articles. DGG (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm in agreement with Crusio & David Eppstein. I would be for a merge to List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge (per S Marshall) if that list had content (it is merely a list, mostly redlinks). I don't see how the Chair qualifies for WP:PROF, and think it would qualify for notability of it met the GNG. A quick search [2] [3] [4] of independent RS coverage doesn't show the chair to be the subject of the coverage... but I am prepared to be swayed. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And merge, per David Eppstein, Crusio, and Pete.Hurd.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article passes WP:NOTE and is therefore notable. We have a large number of individual articles on Cambridge professorships - see Category:Cambridge Professorships. This article is already listed in List_of_professorships_at_the_University_of_Cambridge, so a "merge" would be identical to a delete here - all content would be lost. The argument that this particular chair is not notable simply because it was established only 5 years ago does not hold water for me. How old must a chair be and how many holders must it have to become "notable" ? I see no sensible objective cut-off point here. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'm sorry, but I don't see how this passes WP:N, could you perhaps explain your reasoning a bit for me? There are only two references here, both university related. While I agree that these are reliable sources and confirm the existence of the Chair (not that this was ever in doubt, of course), these sources are not independent and don't establish notability in my eyes. --Crusio (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that's helpful. However, the first part of your argument (notable benefactor and incumbent) goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. Regardless, the two sources that you added are indeed reliable, verifiable and independent. However, I think a case can be made that they are primarily about the benefactor, giving all kind of information about his life and accomplishments, on the occasion of his bequest. There is actually not that much information about the endowed chair in those articles. Personally, I would find it more logical to merge the fact of the bequest and the chair in the article on Herchel Smith and link to that article from the bio on the present incumbent (and any future successors). --Crusio (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blunsdon United F.C.

edit
Blunsdon United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A page that has been deleted twice: speedy deleted CSD A7 and then by WP:PROD, in February. It has been recreated again. Nothing has changed, the article still does not indicate how the club is of significance or importance and the rationale for the prod, "Football club playing county-league football in a park, well below the level that is deemed notable", remains true. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PikiePikie

edit
PikiePikie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software; development ceased in 2003 Dandv (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.Mauriat

edit
P.Mauriat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor manufacturer. Also, article is POV press-release style and is taken entirely from their website and their distributor's website. Special-T (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. It appears the manufacturer is notable - but the article fails to establish that; I had to go looking. The article is certainly very spammy at present and needs some major work. I42 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent bobo

edit
Vincent bobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Artist from Charleston, SC, recently died. Notability is asserted, but Google returns very little to back it up. The nature of the awards this artist received remains a mystery. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sources, and the assertions of notability look rather doubtful - is there such a thing as a "world wide Air Force [art] competition"? I'd expect at least one review of his work _somewhere_ if he's at all notable. Tevildo (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Tevildo. A self-taught artist, working for just 17 years, claims of awards but no sources. Hmmmm...notability not established, methinks. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Duza

edit
Andre Duza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability per WP:CREATIVE. Specifically, I can find nothing to show that his works have garnered the kind of sales/critical attention necessary to be called notable. JaGatalk 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Stuart Black

edit
Duncan Stuart Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined a speedy deletion request on this because I think there's a good faith claim of importance here. However, notability is unclear to me, and I really don't know if this should be deleted, merged to one of the bands, or left for improvement. Gsearch found this and this, but there's a lot of noise in the signal caused by a controversial blogger of the same name. Thoughts? Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only real claims of notability are for the band "3Faced", and I doubt very much if they'd pass WP:BAND even if the claims were sourced. The "Southern California Music Awards" appear to be a one-off event from 2006, and the sales figures aren't that impressive. Supporting a major act doesn't convey notability - and, again, we have no sources for this (or any other) claim. Tevildo (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Female Fat Admirer

edit
Female Fat Admirer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism, no reliable third party sources Thisglad (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madison James

edit
Madison James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable porn actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Charlwood

edit
Amanda Charlwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

SPA-created article claiming subject is best-known as a Ralph Lauren model... except no reliable sources seem to know who she is at all: Google News reveals no coverage and typical fashion directories like Models.com and NYMag.com return no results. Only the Fashion Model Directory says she exists, though it shows a rather minor career - a notable model w/ no magazine covers? - and such profiles are user-submitted anyway.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Goodwin

edit
Josh Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unreferenced article on a non-notable artist. Google search yielded nothing on "Josh Goodwin artist" and "Josh Goodwin Nova Scotia" except Wikipedia and mirrors. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article was improved during the discussion, so the earlier delete opinions were weighted accordingly. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issuu

edit
Issuu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a bit unusual for me to nominate an article that has 20+ sources as being non-notable, but analyzing those sources doesn't allow any other result. The majority are published by the company. The other sources are either passing mentions, or bloggish websites that I am not convinced are reliable. Reyk YO! 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete yes, it appears that image consultants are now telling clients seeking to advertise on wikipedia to just toss up a blizzard of non-RS sources (and why not, it's been working here for years) and that they'll carry the day. But if one looks at the article, as you and i have, one finds one compromised source after another. Wikipedia is not advertising. If this business becomes notable as per wikipedia's standards (reliable, multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of it) then perhaps a real article on this business will be written. In the meantime, can it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopeless WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in Guardian amongst notable company "Twitter, MySpace, Issuu, Facebook". Seem notable enough to me, I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the sources not related to the company, only the Guardian and Wired are reliable, but in Wired it's just mentioned in an URL and in the Guardian the mention is a trivial one in passing. None of the reliable sources give independent non-trivial coverage. (It's really not 20+ references, because more than half refer to their official website. What subpage the info is on doesn't really matter when you're determining the number of sources.) - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have completely reworked the sources which definitely were made incorrectly. Please have a look. I've removed references directly to the company and added more external and credible links where I could find them. I've also added a website info box to highlight that this is a commercial service. Finally, I will have to disagree with what above is referred to as "bloggish websites": Sources such as TechCrunch and CNET are among the most credible sources in the tech sector and they are used throughout Wikipedia. I have only made use of media with elaborate entries on Wikipedia, so you can judge for yourselves by following the internal links. I agree with ChildofMidnight that when a credible source such as Guardian mentions Issuu in this context: "Twitter, MySpace, Issuu, Facebook", it may be what above is referred to as "passing mention" but a pretty good one of that so I chose to keep it. The second Guardian link is to a top 100-200 list of best websites, and I think that's also fair to mention as it's an edited article by the experienced Guardian team. Morbusgravis (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As revised, clearly notable--multiple independent significant reviews in RSs. DGG (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to have reliable sources. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Revised article definitely shows notability. Raven1977Talk to meMy edits 19:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. essentially a list of non-notable people with inadequate sourcing & a very vague criterion. Not ruling out the possibility that a few of the individuals here might merit individual articles. DGG (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osho Follower

edit
Osho Follower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is one big WP:NOR violation, using poor sources, blog postings, etc. The article's creator started the page in order to further push a WP:POINT violation from the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, where he is objecting to the use of the term "follower" in that article. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are plenty of good scources . I did start the article in relation to user cirt insisting on using the reliable sourced osho "followers" see our discussion hereSo as per his reliable sources I have started to create a page of Osho followers, it's true some of the sources will require clean up and some are from blogs /I read somewhere recently that blogs were going to / or are allowed to be quoted. Any way I am prepared to help bring the article up to wiki standard and reject the nomination for speedy delete. Osho has quite a few pages here and I feel that some of his notable "followers" will make a worthwhile inclusion . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • What is the use of this article? There is already an article neo-sannyas that needs developing. All this belongs there. Now, Cirt, look and learn. Here are cited Indian disciples who have nothing to do with any "Oregon power heirarchy" - never did. Completely different ethos. But in India they are now setting up their own little guru stalls, and now here is someone who wants to be a "Osho follower" - but the term is non-notable. It is simply an invention of the human herd instinct like your "high ranking commanders". None of these people has any power unless some idiot wants to join a pack. You two are both projecting your own fantasies. Please remove this page and integrate with the above article and, Rob, please refrain from this cultism - can you not see what happened in the USA. It is nothing to do with any Bhagwan, it is to do with wanting to be part of this, making the other the enemy. Cirt, also, you see? Redheylin (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Redheylin (talk · contribs) - Please keep comments focused to this discussion, namely whether or not this page satisfies WP:NOTE. Please observe WP:NOT#FORUM. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To help those of us not so familiar with the movement(s) follow along, I'm including the relevant navigation box:

Now, I concede that I don't have a great background on the subject, but it seems to me that it's worth having a single article about those-who-follow-Osho, or an article about those who are a member of that religion. All sub-groups and variations should be treated within the same article, so that the reader can get an overview of the whole topic without a lot of clicking around.

There is already an article about Rajneeshees, and a separate article about Neo-sannyas. In my view, that's already one article too many. Now, there is this additional article.

So, there are two distinct questions: (1) What's the best way to structure Wikipedia's coverage of this class of people? and (2) Is the content and approach of the article currently under consideration appropriate for Wikipedia at all?

On the second question, I'd say that most of what's in the article is unencyclopedic. We generally don't list people who don't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criterion. So I'd be fine with delete, perhaps with the thoughtful merging of a small amount of the content into those other articles. -Pete (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Pete - there WOULD be one too many articles, but in fact Rajneeshees diverts to Osho. I think it was removed as non-notable - it should link to neosannyas. I say merge first ask questions later! Do not want to destroy work out of hand. Redheylin (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I introduced some confusion into the discussion by mistake. I meant to link to Rajneeshee (singular). Rajneeshees (plural) is a redirect, and at the time I wrote that it redirected elsewhere. Now it goes to Rajneeshee. Sorry for the confusion. -Pete (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt - it will help the articles if you see that your attempt to portray Osho as the head of a militaristic command at another page is original synthesis and that you have misquoted references to achieve it. Given the seriousness of this you ought to be grateful for my empathetic response. You ARE a person are you not? I mean, sorry if you are actually a machine, but you are editing several related pages and your edits add up to an overall policy which is your policy, your POV - and I am pointing out it is non-neutral, in a nice, kind, helpful way.Redheylin (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 3rd time now: WP:NOT#FORUM. Your comments focus on a single editor and are unrelated to this AfD discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Cirt's proposal for deletion above)
This article is one big WP:NOR violation, using poor sources, blog postings, etc. The article's creator started the page in order to further push a WP:POINT violation from the GA 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, where he is objecting to the use of the term "follower" in that article. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt has introduced the question of the other page and the "leaders and followers" he wishes to introduce there, but now claims that these considerations have no bearing on the present discussion. I am struggling for a word to describe this behaviour. Redheylin (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right - Off2riorob (talk · contribs) started this WP:NOR violation page as an illustration of a WP:POINT violation. Other than noting that, a larger discussion of all of these issues at this page is wholly inappropriate. This should be a discussion of whether or not the page "Osho Follower" should be kept on this project. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be. But your proposal for deletion has resulted from the creation of the page, which has resulted from your own editing. which is NNPOV and which misrepresents sources to achieve OS (and you are dealing with biographies of living persons). It is therefore worth pointing out that your editing is responsible for the creation of the article, as you yourself admit, and that the whole deal, with your spurious warnings and all, looks sorta DISRUPTIVE. (I often use caps for EMPHASIS! but not for hostility). Redheylin (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redheylin (talk · contribs) has still yet to present an argument as to why this page should be kept. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Redheylin (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Osho and merge contents.Delete First, this article is horribly misnamed: it should be something like List of Rajneeshees. Secondly, it's poorly sourced. There is nothing notable about these people as a list. The only conceivable use is that some of the information here could be migrated elsewhere. —EncMstr (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@EncMstr - as you note, the article is poorly sourced, so there isn't really much reliably sourced material to merge. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've changed my !vote accordingly. —EncMstr (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. I have yet to see any evidence within the article (or outside) that "Followers" (with a capital F) is a term used to denote followers/disciples of Osho; Rajneeshees or neo-sannyasins is the usual term,[9] and those are already articles or redirects (latter created by me a minute back). As EncMstr notes above, it may be ok to create a List of Rajneeshees at some point. But that article will need to meet the notability requirements and be properly sourced (which this article isn't!), especially since (1) many of the disciples are still alive and (2) Osho was a controversial figure and not everyone will regard being called his follower to be an honor or even neutrally; so WP:BLP is a concern too. Abecedare (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abecedare - The proposer has said to me above Please keep comments focused to this discussion, namely whether or not this page satisfies WP:NOTE. Please observe WP:NOT#FORUM. I am at a loss to explain why you have received no similar warning, since your recommendation, like my own, is to remove the page but for another reason. Just one thing - as even the proposer concedes there may be valuable material here, and since I and others have proposed merger, and since the editor has successfully sought the blocking of the page-creator for three days, it would be wrong to delete too speedily. EncMstr - there is a page, as noted above for "Osho followers" at neo-sannyas, rather neglected - this is a better place than Osho, which is already huge. Redheylin (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Osho movement - WHY?? Redheylin (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails to meet any standard of notability or verifiability. See Neo-sannyas Rajneeshee for definitive, encyclopedic studies of the followers of Osho. A merge and redirect is not a viable alternative seeing as all those listed are neither adequately verified nor notable according to our guidelines. Steven Walling (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redheylin, your comments above constitute a pretty reckless attack on Cirt. Those comments would be a big problem no matter what editor they were directed at, but in this case you're just digging yourself into a hole. Cirt is well known for his Featured and Good articles, including some of the ones you mention. His research and writing in those articles has been subjected to extensive community review, and is generally agreed to be of high quality. If you can't limit your comments to the article at hand, rather than attacks on your fellow editors, you should excuse yourself from this discussion. -Pete (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for your comment Peteforsyth - it is always good to hear from another friend of Oregon. But you seem to have a mistaken idea of what has taken place. I know exactly what I am saying and why I am saying it. Your comments will be welcome in due course, but check the edit record carefully, thanks - unless you are volunteering as a proxy and are prepared to speak FOR Cirt? Otherwise please just explain exactly what accusations YOU are making and on what grounds. But use my talk page - otherwise you will be continuing to fail to "limiting your remarks to the article at hand", which looks a little sillly. I have not taken your remarks as a personal attack, though they differ little from my own. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge neologism Osho Follower, and Rajneeshee, into Neo-sannyasin (which currently redirects to Neo-sannyas) if the content in "Neo-sannyas" can be properly sourced, and remove all unsourced or unreliably sourced content from all three articles of which each has plenty. If "Neo-sannyas" can't be sourced, merge it and the AfD article into Rajneeshee, as there are many press sources showing these folks were once so-called. If what's left doesn't amount to much more than a stub/definition, the lot should be upmerged to Osho per WP:NOTDIC Katr67 (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this merge too. Better to have one good, properly sourced article than three poor ones. Steven Walling (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Katr67 (talk · contribs) brings up a good point, WP:NOTDIC would apply to all of those pages, which could be merged into Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I was actually going to suggest upmerging Osho movement into Osho as well. Katr67 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. I'm not sure what purpose having all these separate stub articles serves. However, just as to the matter at hand -- are we pretty much all in agreement that this article should be deleted, with a little of its content (the well-sourced stuff) to be included somewhere, in some other article? If so, I think we should just park the contents of this article somewhere in project space so we can do that later. -Pete (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have already parked it, seeing that the proposer had also secured a block of the creator. However, the movement has outlasted the man (who has a very large article already), so one article should remain but not four. As far as I know, neo-sannyas is the defining term. Redheylin (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. You're right, the Osho article is pretty extensive, and a separate article on his various kinds of followers might be a good idea. By the way, your speculation about who is securing what, by what motives, in your comment above, does not help us get to where we need to be. Once again: content, not user behavior. -Pete (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with merging the three "follower" articles into Osho movement. It makes sense since, as Redheylin pointed out, the movement has outlasted its creator. Katr67 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree with Katr67 (talk · contribs) that the most appropriate place to merge anything to would be Osho movement. Also agree with Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) that this page Osho Follower should be deleted, as it doesn't have much reliably sourced content of value. Cirt (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of these people would not fit into the localised category of Rajneeshee , You can not call someone a rajneeshee if he was never there . Can you ? few of the notable people on the page were actually there in Oregon .The thing is that I am also in favour of some kind of merge or deletion or a renaming of this page to noteworthy disciples of Osho or something as the expression of "follower" is really just "press slang ". The Osho page is too big already . I think some of Osho's sannyasins or Neo sannyasins are in themselves quite notable people . Many of them get a lot of hits on google and many have written books and have their own disciples or noteworthy story. I think it's a good idea and suggest I add whatever is noteworthy to Neo-sannyas . Rajneeshee should be merged only with the articles relating to rajneeshees which is bio terror and the assassination conspiracy , apart from that rajneeshee is not important in this , take one of the most active of these Neo sannyasins at the moment with a book and active profile "Rajneesh" this guy was never a Rajneeshee but he is notable in himself . and another, Veeresh , very big in holland and all round the world in therapist and new age circles , he was never in Oregon and therefore could not be called a rajneeshee and Lord Bath , never a rajneeshee and the actor , Terance Stamp never a rajneeshee and so on.. so these things actually require separation . I want this page Osho Follower page to merge with Neo-sannyas ( which is specifically about osho disciples)and to have it's own section called,(something like) Notable Disciples/ Neo sannyasins of Osho. (Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

OK, I think we're getting close, but several of us are talking past each other.
Off2riorob, the idea of merging Rajneeshee into another article is not the logical equivalent of saying that all followers are Rajneeshees; I think what we are supporting is the idea of a broader article having a section on the Rajneeshees, which could state clearly that they are a distinct kind of Osho follower (or neo-sannya), and that they're known more for their history in Oregon and the criminal events. So, I don't think you need to worry about the final article giving the mistaken impression that all Osho followers are Rajneeshees, or are closely related to the Rajneeshees.
If we do merge the three articles, it seems we have two options. Redheylin has proposed that neo-sannyas is the best name to use, while Katr and Cirt prefer Osho movement. I honestly have no idea which is the better title. Are Rajneeshees considered part of the Osho movement, or is that term used for something that's mostly distinct? Are Rajneeshees considered a specific kind of neo-sannyas? I have no idea. I really don't have any expertise in this area. But it would be nice if you guys could lay out clear cases for why one term is better suited as an article title than the other.
Unless Off2riorob strongly opposes merging the articles, and can make a persuasive argument why we should maintain separate ones, I think the article title is the one remaining thing we need to determine to move past this issue and get to work. Is there anything else? -Pete (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate, there is not consensus for a possible merge to include this page, Osho Follower, which is poorly written and poorly sourced. At present it seems the general consensus (including myself) is to delete the page Osho Follower. As for what to do with the other pages, I suggest we migrate further discussion on that to Talk:Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Pete (talk). Thanks for your openness. Rajneeshee was an expression created colloquially in Oregon and in pockets of the press at and around the time of the crimes that were committed there in Oregon . Previous to this the movement was in India and the people known as Sannyasins which is the Indian word for disciple and after the Oregon time the movement all went to back to India where the people again began to be referred to as Neo-sannyas -ins or Disciples , the term Rajneeshees is inextripically and colloquilly linked to the period in Oregon so you can't call someone a rajneeshee if he was never in Oregon and the term rajneeshee is as good as redundant in the world apart from in Oregon , where the expression was formed 25 years ago . All of these events would make up what is being refered to here as the Osho movement.
The complaints from cirt that the article is poorly written and sourced can easily be addressed. If there is to be a vote I notice there are people here from the Oregon project , invited by cirt. I would ask these people to consider the fact that the majority of these people were never in Oregon and have nothing to do with the crimes and events that happened there 25 years ago .
I would like to reiterate that if this page is deleted I still have the desire on the grounds that it will be of benefit to the encyclopedia, to create a section in the Neo-sannyas page on the topic of Noteworty Disciples of Osho. best regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I went to this article and learned about a few things that I would have probably never known about. I don't think deletion is the answer to the above problems. Niubrad (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you learned those things from poorly sourced material, i.e. personal blogs at blogspot.com, etc. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If poor sources is the issue then I suggest we discuss that. (Off2riorob (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
WP:RS and WP:V has lots of helpful info on sourcing standards on this project. Cirt (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts this is not the place to discuss this . I can see no strong concencuss for delete here so as wikipedia thought is only to delete in that case then I suggest mergeing into Neo-sannyas. Can an independant admin close this Rfd. ? (Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Please see WP:AFD regarding the time period of the deletion discussion. And I disagree with your interpretation of the current consensus in this discussion - so far the majority of contributors have stated that the page Osho Follower should be deleted. Regarding what to do with the other pages - that can be discussed at Talk:Osho movement. Cirt (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no strong consensus to delete here . I have started work on the article to improve it and am presently removing copyrighted material copied from websites . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

these people are notable . Many have written books that have sold well and I will expand the article to explain that. Verresh is a massive new age personallity. Terrance stamp has if you look the information on his page here that he dropped out and was at an ashram .Lord bath and so on ....so this would be an expansion about that .. Rajneesh has had many thousand of downloads of his book from his website . It is true that none of these people are noteworthy in Oregon which is were cirt has gone to get people here to support him in his delete request.. all of the negative comments are from people from the Oregon projest where cirt left a message asking people to come here to support his personal point of view, but these people that I am talking about have nothing to do with Oregon . What you have here is a group of people all from a localised ares attempting and encouraged by cirt who himself is unable to deny his anti rajnneshee point of view attempting to bias a situation that actually is nothing to do with Oregon and more to do with India.
A lot of these people are notable in India only . and in nepal Arun is huge , verresh is huge in holland and the new age world . These negative comments are from people wrongly commenting on this issue when what they want to comment on is the bio terror attack from 25 years ago in which these people were not involved at all . (Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It seems like three users User:Katr67 and User:Abecedare and User:Peteforsyth appear to be in agreement with merging or keeping in some way as they have all in unison edited (apply good faith ..to improve the article) edited the article ,quite severely. which is also what I was starting to do .. In reality what is left is just a beginning and the development of the "renamed" section "notable disciples of Osho" which should be merged into Neo-sannyas which is the primary description of the majority of these people will be one of my priorities. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Only the opinions stated on this page should be taken into consideration. My (or anyone else's) editing or not editing the article is not a !vote for keeping, merging or deletion. To be honest, I simply couldn't stand looking at how poorly formatted, full of unnecessary info, etc. (see my edit summaries) it was anymore. By removing much of chaff, I find it a bit easier to see if there is anything in there worth keeping. I don't have an opinion on that except for what I stated in my !vote above, which was to merge anything that can be reliably sourced into another article, which consensus apears to be leaning towards Osho movement. That may or may not default to delete depending on whether the info in this article is worth merging. And to address Off2riorob's previous comments about editors weighing in on this Afd per Cirt's invite--Although I have worked with Cirt from time to time, my opinions are entirely my own, based on my understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Please stop attributing actions to editors without proof. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just happened to look at this page (to check why it hadn't closed yet), and was surprised to see the comments Off2riorob has made about my and other editors' opinion/motivation. To clarify:
  • As I have clearly stated above I think the article needs to be deleted since
    • it has no reliably sourced content that needs to be merged,
    • even the very first senetence defining the article subject is unsourced and false as far as I can see.
  • I think Off2riorob's allegations of bias against all the editors who have voted for deletion or merge of the article are inappropriate, uncivil and disruptive. To the best of my knowledge, I have never edited any Oregon, or Rajneesh related article, nor interacted with User:Cirt (except possibly in wikipedia space like ANI, RSN, FTN etc) and even if that had not been the case, such assumptions of bad faith are unwarranted.
Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Merge to Neo-sannyas These people are individuals and as such they are not connected to the osho movement some are neo sannyasins or connected to Neo-sannyas (Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment This is really not the place to be having a detailed discussion about how to adjust the content of any article. I think those of us with more experience have erred here, by veering in that direction. There is not a whole lot of difference between "delete" and "merge-to"; either way, there is a pretty strong consensus here that the page Osho Follower should be deleted. How much of the content gets preserved on another page, like Neo-sannyas, then becomes a content issue, and should be discussed on the Talk:Neo-sannyas page. There's really no reason not to close this right away; any of us with an interest in following the discussion in more detail can then follow it to that page.
Off2, one thing you should be aware of is that the word notable has a rather specific meaning here on Wikipedia. It's typically used for people or entities who meet the notability criterion. Typically, a list of people like this would only include people who meet that criterion, and who have a Wikipedia article. For instance, lots of editors like to add their favorite Portlanders to a page like Portland, Oregon in a section called "notable Portlanders"; if no action was taken, we could easily wind up with a list of 1000 people as more and more people get added. So if you're going to pursue this on the Neo-sannyas page, you may want to think about why this case should be an exception to that general principle. What is the criterion for whether someone makes the list, and what reliable source determines that each person has exceeded that threshold? -Pete (talk) 00:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment -- I am an active member of WikiProject Oregon, and I did come here at Cirt's request. However, I would strongly disagree with Off2's characterization that Cirt was seeking people to come here to "support his personal point of view." I believe Cirt requested that I get involved (and others on the Oregon project) because he sees that we have a little bit of general familiarity with the subject matter, and respects our ability to find consensus and work in the interest of the encyclopedia's mission. Off2, if you disagree with what I said above -- that there is a strong and legitimate consensus to delete the Osho Follower page, regardless of whether or not any of its contents are merged into another article -- feel free to solicit the input of people from another project, such as WikiProject India, who you feel might be in a better position to weigh in with some expertise on the subject matter. The re-listing of this AfD means that it will stay open for a while longer, so you should have ample time to do that if you like. -Pete (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete thanks for your comments and you are right ... that there is a consensus to delete the page osho follower (not strong-actually a weak consensus , including a oregon element .. mostly actually almost nobody cares a sausage.) I am new here, I have not like you people been here years and know each other, I am here on my own . I have no chance at all , I am not the type of person to go off seeking support from other groups . I don't want any more time on this , . I don't want re-listing . (Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

while any one is considering this nomination I would ask them to consider cirts comment on the conspiracy to murder chalres turner page ... and I copy it here ....

Followers

Verifiable, reliable sources refer to the perpetrators in the assassination plot as "followers" of Rajneesh. Thus, this wording is appropriate for usage in this article, as opposed to jargon internal to the Rajneesh organization that the reader will not understand, and that is not used by reliable sources to refer to the perpetrators. Cirt (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can see cirt is into "follower"'(Off2riorob (talk) 01:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

ah .. that was easy abecadare ..User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_7#reliable_sources_at_rajneeshee_assination_plot. here (from your archives) are you getting involved previously on a rajneesh question and now you are here ..attacking me and feigning injury and innocence

from your archives..... reliable sources at rajneeshee assination plot. hello abecedare... your comment here was totally on the mark.. it is not the book I care about but this comment said by taylor at a press conferance which is reported in the book .. I have found the quote in another book as well ...both books have been disputed by the other editor on the page.I actually don't care about the books .. it is the comments reported from the press conference that I want to include...

Broader question: I just looked at the article talkpage, and it appears the point of contention seems to be what Charles Turner said at a press conference after an event (1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, I assume). Since the comments were made at a press conference, aren't there contemporaneous media accounts about what was or wasn't said ? Why are we having to look at POV sources for this information ? Has anyone searched Lexis-Nexis ?Abecedare (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC).... (Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Off2, you (and Cirt, too) have both had things to say that indicate you don't entirely trust each other's motives. I would like to strongly discourage you from continuing down that road. You clearly both have a desire to improve Wikipedia's content in areas related to Osho. I think we have established that it's possible to work together. But until you both decide to stop letting your personal history get in the way, we're all going to be dealing with more than we have to. It's unpleasant. Much better when we all focus on article content, rather than editor behavior and speculation about motives. -Pete (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please leave cirt out of it . what I am asking is what about the fact the I have produced a cite were abecedare was recently commenting on these matters and here on this page he gets all like he is totally innocent and was wandering by and starts attempting to create a bad reflection about me ...here is his untrue comment from this very page ......"I have never edited any Oregon, or Rajneesh related article, nor interacted with User:Cirt (except possibly in wikipedia space like ANI, RSN, FTN etc) and even if that had not been the case, such assumptions of bad faith are unwarranted". Abecedare (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ...(Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have responded on the user's talkpage, since this does not deal with the notability of the AFD article.
Suggestion: Could someone refactor this page and collapse the off-topic discussions. I won't be doing so myself, since it is likely to bring forth more bad-faith allegations. Abecedare (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abecedare, I see the value of what you're requesting, but I suspect that anyone attempting to refactor the page would wind up fending off charges of bias, from someone in the discussion. Maybe someone will be bold enough to try. Speaking for myself, I've about reached the end of my patience on this matter, at least for the moment. From my point of view, we have a very strong consensus on the specific matter we came to discuss. It's possible that Off2 does not buy into that consensus (difficult for me to tell), but even without him it is a stronger consensus than we usually see on this sort of thing. So I don't really see what further contribution I could make to this discussion. I'm taking it off my watch list (though I'll probably check back at some point to see how things are going). -Pete (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense that someone with an outright preference to delete this article should be editing it to improve it. As far as refractorizationing goes , if you look at one of my recent posts I have asked for the closure of this , and as I am the only person wishing to keep anything then I ask again please close this . (Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

On a side issue ...if Osho "follower" is removed then I will also be looking to remove the repeated referances to the "follower" expression from related pages . (Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Daftary

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sahar Daftary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. The first AfD was filed around the time of Daftary's death, which at that moment was receiving extensive news coverage, primarily because of manner of her death, leading to a belief that she was notable. The AfD was closed as Keep, but at the subsequent DRV it was established that No consensus was a more appropriate closure.

Looking at the coverage again, it is limited to no more than 10 days, detailing once again the death/manner of death rather than the person. Subsequent coverage is negligible. The only noted achievement was winning a contest titled Face of Asia in 2007, although the contest itself is non-notable. The article is an obvious case of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. LeaveSleaves 20:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed in the first nomination process and the evidence has been provided both there and in the article itself. The discussion led to a Keep and should stay so. And as you where very mutch involved in tha discussion i guess you should know.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the first AfD and in the article, the only notable work by Daftary prior to her death is said to be her win of Face of Asia competition. The competition is held during a festival by Asian community in UK. If you seek notability of the said competition, the only coverage received is through Daftary's death. If you seek the notability of the festival that includes this competition, you find nothing. Then how is it that a non-notable competition part of a non-notable festival be considered as the one justifying the notability of this person? And as of the Keep closure, have you read the subsequent DRV? There it was quite clear opinion of multiple editors, including the admin who closed the first AfD, that No consensus would have been a proper closure. LeaveSleaves 21:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dying to Live (disambiguation)

edit
Dying to Live (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PRODed when this was a disambiguation to a single red-linked entry. The PROD was removed, and three more entries were added. However, I still do not think this is a needed disambiguation. Of the four current entries, only one has it's own page that I can find, and that one is itself tagged for notability. Two of the others, including the original one, the creators are red links. And the final entry, while the creator is certainly notable, I see no indication on the creator's discography page that this particular song is notable. So, all in all, I still see no useful purpose to this disambiguation. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Serbia relations

edit
Albania–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another unsourced stub with no notability asserted, no notability establishable by me (via reliable independent sources of this relationship} and very dim chances for ever becoming notable. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And will you be improving the article in a manner that would allow the rest of us to assess your assertions (what notable "relations" supported by what, etc...)? Or just throwing up a wall of links here with no context?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali not trying to be uncivil as I normally am not, but I have been easily rescuing many articles that you have put up for deletion within the past few days. Most notably Australia-Uruguay relations, and Canada-Kazakhstan relations have been updated by me and others using very easy to find links, I am actually re-writing this one as I type this quick message, using not just the links above but more I can quickly establish this articles notability. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 22:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your efforts are often epic failures as well. Who cares? I don't. What are you going to do here? That's all I care about (and i hope the rest of us) here. Make a good article, by all means.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite the un-civil comment, if my efforts were really "epic failures" then why are those Afd's all leaning keep right now? But that's beside the point on this article I am doing my best to write a in-depth article detailing the Political relations, including a "Mass Genocide" between the two, discuss the countries economic relationships and hopefully even add more. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be crystal, uncivilly clear: I don't give a rats ass about your intentions. If you improve the article to meet inclusion standards, i do care. Either do it or do not, says yoda (or something).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um Bali, given that you supported the civility parol for Dream today, based on comments which were much more civil in an Afd, I would suggest that you refactor this comment. then I will happily remove this one. Thanks! Ikip (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And "I keep" I don't care about your passive-aggression. I really don't care about anyones intentions. What i care about is the content of the articles. I care not -- not a rats ass -- about anything else here. Either the article has it or does not. I have nothing to refactor, and I have no regard for your advice on AfD ettiquette, just so we're perfectly clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, Marcusmax offered legitamate and excellent references. Instead of embracing these references, and reconsidering your nomination for deletion, you personally attacked Marcusmax. Why? Ikip (talk) 01:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012: Devolution

edit
2012: Devolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As yet unreleased independent film "to be distributed in 2010", with a website that's nothing more than a page with a logo. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.  Channel R   20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Projektron BCS (software)

edit
Projektron BCS (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite author removing the prod tag, can't see any notability here. Oscarthecat (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Speedy A7 --GedUK  21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BookArmy

edit
BookArmy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN social networking site. Minor coverage of launch shows good PR firm, but not WP:Notability. As it is, the article reads like an advert. Failed prod after sole author removed tag. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn per paywall and non English sources that Google wasn't comming up with. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jingjing Wang

edit
Jingjing Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wow, for a concert pianist supposedly of this high a caliber, I wasn't able to verify any of the awards he's claimed to have won - in fact I couldn't find a single non-trivial source. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest searching in the native languages of the competitions instead of being English-centric. Or do you want Wikipedia to be English-only? You can certainly, easily verify the Panama one. Some of the earlier items from China and Russia in the 2000-2004 range may not have web-verifiable sources - I am searching for what I can find, however. The the Kankakee win and performance, you can search on the [Daily Journal] for Jingjing Wang and find supporting articles, however their system doesn't allow direct links to past articles so they couldn't be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emathias (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources don't necessarily need to be in English but that being said, Google news should have still turned up a newspaper article regardless of its original language (with a translation link). From what I could tell, there seems to be no third party, non trivial coverage of Jingjing. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar–Russia relations

edit
Madagascar–Russia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Malagasies (sp?) and the modern Russians are both fine, proud peoples. And I bet they'd get along great if they knew each other, or were neighbors, or had overlapping interests, or something. But as it stands Madagascar and the Russian state don't have much to do with each other -- certainly no reliable sources demonstrate they have much to do with each other. So I believe this unsourced stub should be deleted. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can I ask what sources you searched in? Because it certainly was not Russian sources. [15][16][17][18][19] Contacts between Russia and Madagascar date back to the days of Peter the Great. Details will also be found in publications such as (67)9 Е 60 Емельянов А.Л., Забытая история Великого острова: [Мадагаскар в середине XIX – нач. XX в.] / А.Л. Емельянов, П.А. Мыльцев; АН СССР. Ин-т востоковедения. – М.: Наука, 1990. – 141 с.: 8 л. ил.: ил. – (Рассказы о странах Востока). – Библиография: с. 133–140. This is a subject which is going to really be covered in offline sources, and if you would like to pay for my airfare to Moscow, I would be more than happy to travel to do research on this topic. I could even include details relating to the numerous treaties signed between the USSR and Madagascar, some of which carried over to the RF, and some historical trade figures. The topic is notable. --Russavia Dialogue 20:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A challenge -- pick whichever of the completely uncontextualized "sources" you've provided above. Pick the strongest -- and tell us what sentence or paragraph it might support on the topic of "madagascar-russia relations." This would be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As non-notable compared to any other random two countries. The single event listed as being in any way significant was directed to the whole continent of Africa, not specifically about Madagascar–Russia. I also note that the text of the first paragraph is incomplete... these were definite cookie-cutter stubs (as if we couldn't tell before) made with no assertion of notability and no attempt to do so. New articles like this are more damaging than helpful. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources Additionally, there is this (pages 43-66) and this (pages 54-80) which describe in detail early contacts of the Russian Empire with Madagascar. This is just two documents (published by kdu.ru). There is also this, but at 235euro, it is a bit out of my price range, but judging by their other volumes, they will likely go into detail of the relations. --Russavia Dialogue 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A challenge pick whichever is the stongest (or, heck, do it with all of them!) of these "sources" you've provided, and in the English language write a sentence or a paragraph that explains what what they say about relations between the modern states of Madagascar and Russia. Attached to these summary/translations, provide the source they come from and the page or pages that are relevant in particular. In this way, we can evaluate these sources and perhaps be convinced.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does this mean that you have nothing specifically to tell us here? I presume you're saying it has something to do with a nationa called "Russia?" It's all not clear. Please provide, specifically, at least one source that you think establishes notablithy for this whole topic of "Russia-Madagascar relations" so we can evaluate it. THis is the third time i've asked.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both of you have a point: on the one hand, there is a Template:Foreign relations of the Soviet Union, with relations specifically of the USSR and various other countries; on the other hand (if Russavia's sources can indeed be turned into article prose, which remains to be seen), does it make sense in this case to split USSR-Madagascar and Russia-Madagascar? The latter is after all the successor state of the former, so the whole topic could plausibly be covered in one location. - Biruitorul Talk 00:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an unreasonable question. I won't be able to give an answer until what sources and information is proposed (and to be honest, claims about soviet/malagasay friendship in the cold war without info on money, real commitments, general RS stuff won't fly for me either -- and even then, says little about modern day "Russia's" relationship with the country.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources noted by Russavia indicate it's a notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the relations date back to Soviet time, I think, when there were attempts of building a socialist society on the island. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bali is deeply misunderstanding the nature of these article; it's not only the current trade agreements and relationship, but also in the past decades, and under Ratsiraka Madagascar was well known to be a pillar of Soviet influence (well, except to Bali apparently). Anyways, just to make all happy, I'll provide a reliable source [20].--Aldux (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are clearly available for expansion, and that is sufficient. historic relations count as well as present ones. This was one of the most significant attempts of the USSR to establish a presence in Africa. DGG (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source Диссертация ГЕРМАНЧУКА Максима Николаевича: «Становление и развитие внешней политики Мадагаскара: проблемы и перспективы (1960-2005 гг.)» This is the Kandidat dissertation of Maxim Germanchuk at MGIMO on the development of the foreign policy of Madagascar, including information on the negative-trend of RF-Malagasy relations and their future prospects. However, this dissertation will need to be sourced from the MGIMO library. There are many topics which will have much authoritative sourcing offline, and this is an example of one. Also, WP:STUB applies here, I think it is has been established here that there are notable relations, but I do believe it is inappropriate to use AfD as an attempt to force editors to expand articles. --19:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Russavia Dialogue
  • Keep per WP:HEY, my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any article that deals with a proven history of bilateral relations b\w any countries deserves its own special place in WP. KNewman (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Black

edit
Mars Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Does not demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC or biographical guidelines, lacking non-trivial third party coverage from reliable publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this a violation of WP:POINT, since DRV is not required to overturn a prod, and because you, acting in good faith, essentially contested the PROD after its deletion, and JBsupreme acting in good faith nominated it for AFD like is standard for any other contested prod. By the way I am Neutral on this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chubbles this article appeared on my watchlist as a contested prod. I searched Google News archives and found no evidence that this artist meets WP:MUSIC. The links you provided do not help the cause either. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I provided four non-trivial, third party pieces of coverage from reliable publications. Chubbles (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N and WP:MUSIC are met by the sources added by Chubbles. sparkl!sm hey! 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd say the Allmusic bio and Pitchfork review are sufficient as non-trivial independent published works, even if Pitchfork says he's mostly notable for being terrible. Also, Conor Oberst's label Team Love Records is an "important indie label (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)", so he meets WP:BAND criterion #5 as well. I don't, however, see anything POINTy about this nomination, which appears to have been made according to process and in good faith, so chillax, peoples. — Gwalla | Talk 22:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Verifiability is clearly not a problem and if the reliable sources confirm they had two albums on a notable label, WP:MUSIC isn't in question either. I really don't see why it got nominated. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the 2 Allmusic refs is an argument for keeping, but PopMatters and Pitchfork Media are nowhere near encyclopedic RSes. It still fails wp:music 5 (labels: Team Love Records), and 2 (charts) according to Billboard, which has pages on both albums [25] [26], but nothing on anything of his ever charting anywhere: [27]. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-17t12:43z
      • How does Team Love Records not meet WP:MUSIC#5? It's been around for about 6 years and has several notable bands and artists on its roster. And at any rate, an artist only has to meet one of the music criteria to qualify, not all. — Gwalla | Talk 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: PopMatters is a reliable source: It's been used as a source of information by The New York Times[28][29], it's archived by one of the leading music journalists archive sites[30] and it has had essays published in books - most notably in Da Capo's Best Music Writing 2006[31]. I'm pretty sure I could come up with similar for Pitchfork, but I don't need to as PopMatters and Allmusic make that multiple reliable sources. --JD554 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Netherlands relations

edit
Belarus–Netherlands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another trivial intersection of countries. Nothing more to say about this than that the embassy/mission/etc. is in such and such a place. Nothing has been written in reliable sources about the countries' relations. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If anything encyclopedically notable is referenced, I'll change to keep. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-15t18:57z
    • Keep after Drmies' improvements because it now qualifies as notable enough for Wikipedia, tho it doesn't yet indicate real encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-16t09:28z
  • Delete this unreferenced sub does not even assert notability. When i went looking for notability for this obscure, untended relationship i found none. Which is to say that this defines non-notable and unverifiable as a topic.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Bali, you are too quick on the draw, and I think you don't speak or read Dutch. The two countries do have relations; in fact, they have relations to the point where they were broken off out of concern for human rights violations in Belarus (which is usually called "Wit-Rusland" in Dutch). See, for instance, a letter by the Dutch foreign ministry to the Dutch parliament concerning Dutch relations with a number of Eastern-European countries, here. After the 2006 Elections the Dutch secretary of state refused to loosen passport requirements for Belarussians, here. The Dutch swayed the European Union from having an Interpol summit in Minsk, to protest those elections, here. Children from Belarus affected by the Chernobyl disaster have for years been coming to the Netherlands for summer vacations, and in 2008 were prevented from doing so by the Belarus government, here. I'm sure there's more to be found; these were found using a Google News search. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you beavering away adding sources using reliable, independent sources in a language that i don't speak (does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?) that could establish notability? If not, let's not make it about me. Let's make it about: totally unreferenced stub of no apparent notability (and none establishable by me) on wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and to be clear. I don't think Dutch passport laws as they relate to Belarus are particularly interesting (i'm almost certain, poor non-dutch speaker that i am, that there isn't a "special" belarus category -- just that they aren't in the top tier), I think it's wonderful that either the dutch state or the dutch citizen (or both -- who knows?! -- i don't speak dutch and no dutch speaker has ever, in good faith, briefly summarized and used a dutch reliable source for this article so that i could evaluate it and learn something at the same time) have helped Belarusian victims of Chernobyl, and I'm sorry that, briefly, the dutch were briefly upset that the belarusian state often behaves like thugs (I'm from the US, my state often does likewise, but out of good faith holland keeps its mouth shut. Who cares?) In closing -- my roomate Anthony's girlfriend Ala is a belarusian (jewish first however; she does not have fond memories of the old country) -- and standing over my shoulder she says there is no relationship. And what is the worth of Ala's comment as a citation? Not much, but better than every citation (hint -- there are none) in the article at the moment.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?) that could establish notability?" Is that supposed to be funny? and this, "out of good faith holland keeps its mouth shut. Who cares?" is there a joke here that I'm not getting? I'm not telling you to speak or read Dutch, although anyone could figure out that countries sometimes have different names in different languages, and although I don't understand why you would insult someone who does--and no, this is not about you, although you did say that you went looking and found nothing. Well, you didn't look in the proper places, it's that simple. I'm not adding all this stuff to the article right now. AfD is not for cleanup, it's for establishing notability. If some editors are convinced by the links I've provided that the subject is notable, then I'm happy. If you're not, I couldn't care less. Oh, it's spelled H-A-N-D-E-L-S-B-L-A-D, and the paper is called NRC Handelsblad, and they're still in business and so are a host of other notable newspapers, including Trouw and Volkskrant. Pardon me for having more faith in the references I found than in your roommate's girlfriend. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. A native speaker of english would have understood that "does holland even have a decent paper left after hanedelsbladt (sp?)" meant "is there a paper beyond the venerable NR-CHE blah blah blah" that is notable? It's clear you speak english excellently, but not at native level. That's ok. Well done! Here's a pro-tip for those wanting to create real content for wikipedia, if they speak dutch and have good english (as you do). What's cool about this subject is that it has almost no ghits but if i spoke hollandisch (or whatever the kids are calling it these days) I could have a start class article done on this interesting fellow in less than an hour. Dirk Vlasblom. Go for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for the compliment. I'm sorry I misunderstood your usage of the word "left after"--but all I have at my disposal is TAHD and the online OED, and they didn't offer "besides" as an option. Given that you yourself concede that knowledge of Dutch would allow you to write this up as a decent article, given that these sources exist, and given that AfD is not about the actual inclusion of sources in the article but about the notability of the topic, are you willing to reconsider your delete vote? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't conceeded anything. Speaking dutch is an asset. I trust you to fairly translate any sources you find. I have yet to see anything that raises this to notable. Why not make a real article, with sources and everything, about dirk?Bali ultimate (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sir, I ask that you kindly take another look at the article, paying particular attention to the quality of the sources. Some might call it a "real" article now. I also would like to request that you ask me about "dirk" in another forum, in order not to trivialize the discussion here. Drmies (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Johnny Paycheck. (non-admin closure) Timmeh! 23:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado Kool-Aid (song)

edit
Colorado Kool-Aid (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Didn't chart, no awards, etc. Unlikely title for a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Soto

edit
Lindsay Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nn talking head on tv. The Emmy the article claims she won is not mentioned at the Emmy's official website and without the Emmy, she fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. No valid reason given for the nomination. "This is a silly book and stupid" is not a valid argument. bogdan (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World

edit
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a silly book and stupid. Wikipedia is losing its integrity and crediblty by keeping this article up. Plus I found out this article got deleted because it is nonnotable. Tversl (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, nominating this article for deletion was the nominator's first edits. I say this as a statement of fact, and not to imply anything. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what your implying mister, and I dont like it. I just saw this article yesterday and I felt it was stupid. Plus, so three newspapers report on it, including one big tabloid. So what, they dont count for much. For notable, this article should have TIME or Washington Post or something. Brit newspapers arent anything special. Tversl (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to :Category:Christianity-related controversies. I've added the articles listed here to Category:Christianity-related controversies, and will delete the article. I don't see the title as a likely search term, but redirects are cheap, so I left one. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Controversies related to Christianity and Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot see a purpose to this article. It might be possible for there to be a list of such controversies, but this is not such a list and is so dubious that I have no reason to think it will improve. Otherwise, I tend to think that whatever topic this was created to address may well be better served by the deletion of this page and the creation of another one. John Carter (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. delete all except for Finland-Malta relations which seems to have enough consensus to close as no consensus (ironic, no?) where it can stand for separate AfD if anyone desires as mentioned in the discussion Valley2city‽ 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations

edit
Bosnia and Herzegovina–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The very definition of random. I hope no one objects to the bundling, as it should seem apparent that a pair of islands populated by 400,000 is not going to have much of a significant relationship with, say, Kazakhstan or Vietnam, or any of these places. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations and numerous recent precedents, bilateral relations are not inherently notable, and these fall squarely into that category. Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Malaysia–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombia–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Montenegro relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (note: the date of Malta's recognition of Montenegro is recorded at Foreign relations of Montenegro)
Finland–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Kazakhstan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Thailand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment - I don't understand why we would keep Finland–Malta relations. These countries are both in the EU, but they don't maintain embassies, and their mutual relations are so lacking in signficance that they are not even mentioned in Foreign relations of Finland or Foreign relations of Malta. I think such an article would have to be justified by real sources. A quick Google search doesn't find anything to show the importance of that connection. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as a maintainability nightmare. Countries don't need mutual embassies to have notable relations; e.g. when they are engaged in a war. But these are clearly not notable. The only thing that would be worth preserving is the circumstances of establishment of diplomatic relations. These could go to the foreign relations of Malta page, in some (perhaps all?) cases also to the corresponding page of the other country. If this information is actually true; it's unreferenced. But given copy-paste errors such as "Peru is represented in Thailand through its embassy in Rome (Italy)." in Malta–Peru relations, I would say it's probably preferable to take this information directly from the original source. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: My !vote explicitly applies to Malta–Montenegro relations and Finland–Malta relations as well as the others. I just double-checked that while they may be slightly less absurd than the others in that one can add a few more irrelevant lines to them, they still make no sense and are simply not notable, not even taking into account the double-tax treaty between Malta and Montenegro. It would be like having an article Heidelberg–Mannheim roads. Yes, there is a motorway connecting these two German cities as well as some other roads. But this doesn't make this specific article topic notable; there are no books or even newspaper articles on "Malta and Finland: An example of fruitful international relations", or "Roads and Railroads connecting Mannheim and Heidelberg". These articles also have no technical justification such as collecting several other, more notable, topics. And they make no sense (at least at the moment) as spin-outs from other articles. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Most of these are Groubanis, and what little information is in these can all be mentioned in Foreign relations of Malta. Apparently, if you're wanting to get in touch with Malta, you call your Ambassador to Italy. For faster service, telephone the Maltese foreign ministry (011-356-2124-2191) and ask for Biff. Mandsford (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC) P.S.-- I've read DGG's intervention in this one, and I think it's an inappropriate action that I hope will be challenged. There's no need to renominate all of these mass-produced articles individually. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note This discussion was originally speedily closed on the grounds that it was unsuitable as a mass nomination, but has been reopened based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_9.--Aervanath (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conformer Expansion Products

edit
Conformer Expansion Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, fails WP:COMPANY, spammy content, no WP:RS supporting notability, prod contested by author so taking to AFD MuffledThud (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Belgium relations

edit
Barbados–Belgium relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Two countries whose bilateral relationship is so unimportant and trivial to them they don't maintain embassies in each others respective capitals. No assertion of notability, none findable by me, no sources in the article or otherwise available about the topic of this relationship. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diving Almanac & Book of Records

edit
AfDs for this article:
Diving Almanac & Book of Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

User:GEERG went on a self-promotional tour yesterday; two of his articles were speedily deleted, although this remains. Anyway, this article too should be deleted because it's essentially advertising for a product that no third-party sources have indicated has notability. Biruitorul Talk 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moldova–Netherlands relations

edit
Moldova–Netherlands relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A bilateral relationship so non-notable to the countries involved that they don't maintain full embassies in each others capitals. I can find no reliable, independent sources that cover this relationship in any depth. There is already a Foreign relations of Moldova article, where Moldova's general relationship with wealthier european countries can be discussed. This could aspire to be, at best, a content fork from that dicussion, but even in the context of Moldova's relationship with Western europe, Holland isn't really a player. Bali ultimate (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile-Luxembourg relations

edit
Chile-Luxembourg relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another bilateral "relationship" that has never received any significant, independent, non-trivial coverage in any reliable sources. Why? Because according to this stub, neither country has a full embassy in the other and diplomatic contacts are slight to non-existent. One of the two sources in the article at the moment is that the Luxembourg 2008 census found that 60 Chileans were living in Luxembourg, which gives a feel for the extent and grandeur of the two nation's ties. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My thoughts: I do not think that it should be deleted. It has some sources in it, and yes, the Chileans living in Luxembourg is a good idea to keep it there. But i will work on the article to improve it. Russian Luxembourger (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. The Ogre (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Luxembourg may be small, but even for its population of 480,000, 60 barely registers. Certainly no indication these people are notable, and their relations are basically just pro forma, so delete. - Biruitorul Talk 15:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is about non-resident ( or non-existent) ambassadors in each country, with the rest outlining private companies or residents with no obvious connection to either government. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there are over 900 countries, and thousands of former countries, there could be literally millions of trivial articles stating that two countries have or had ambassadors or consuls or were represented by some other country's ambassador. The mere fact that two countries exist or once existed does not mean that we need articles such as this. Did they form alliances, or become major trading partners, or go to war, or anything else which would have caused there to be significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, satisfying notability? The mere fact that there is an "honorary consul" is insufficient to justify an article, since Wikipedia is not a directory.Edison (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, category is more appropriate. Nakon 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC) per consensus at DRV [34] this has been overturned as no-consensus Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Barack Obama (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of articles related to Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List of topics related to Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama (disambiguation) which has since been moved to List of articles related to Barack Obama, which has since been moved to List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama, which has since been moved to List of topics related to Barack Obama|View AfD]])


NOTE: This AfD was originally for Barack Obama (disambiguation). During the course of the AfD, Barack Obama (disambiguation) was moved to List of articles related to Barack Obama by ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs). Then it was moved to List of Wikipedia articles related to Barack Obama by Guest9999 (talk · contribs). Then it was moved to List of topics related to Barack Obama by DHowell (talk · contribs). Who knows where it will be tomorrow?

Misguided attempt to reinvent categories. Also, an apparent misuse of a disambiguation page. Normal Wikipedia mechanisms like blue links, templates and categories serve this function perfectly adequately. Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This is not the proper use of a disambiguation page.keystoneridin! (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously per nom. — R2 15:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of articles related to Barack Obama, remove the {{disambig}} template, and keep. This looks like a classic list to me. It's not equivalent to a category because a category would lose the grouping into subtopics. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really needed though? We have the Obama template(s), categorizes and Wikiproject. I'm sure people can find his articles quite easily. Just a thought anyway. — R2 15:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per above. The Ogre (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (creator) I have renamed the article per the suggestions. This will also allow the templates to be included at the bottom (I'm not sure if the categories are okay or not). There are lots of articles related to Obama and it's helpful to have a list type article for navigation. It's not always intuitive what articles are included on Wikipedia and what they're called, so hopefully this provides a helpful navigation aid by including the breadth of coverage in one place. It was interesting working on it because there were all these random articles I didn't know about (and of course mroe to add). Categories have their limitations and many casual readers don't use them properly. As is indicated above, a list also presents the information in a different way and allows for additional information to be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should have done this until the discussion is over. You can't just move a page to avoid deletion. If I knew how to do an unmove, I would. As a result, to avoid any kind of wikilawyering regarding the outcome of this AfD, I am changing this AfD to represent the article for which you moved the disambig page to. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is completely against normal process, which should allow 7 days before any action. That's in the second sentence at WP:AFD, in fact. Highly inappropriate behavior. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can nominate Barack Obama (disambiguation) for speedy deletion as a non-controversial move since the AfD is still in progress by adding {{db-move|PAGE TO BE MOVED HERE|REASON FOR MOVE}}, then move it back. When the final resting place for the list is decided upon (unless consensus is deletion), it can be moved back, or to the new location. The template still has the old location listed in it, I have had trouble with pages that got deleted via AfD but were moved during the process, the AfD template keeps the original location, and the page does not get sorted right.--kelapstick (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't read Wikipedia:AFD like that at all. I see no reason an article on AfD can't be improved during the process to deal with the stated reasons for deletion, and thus to avoid deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't improvement. The content is the issue as raised by the AfD nom, not the name of the page or location of it. Therefore it shouldn't have been moved. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the name isn't in question, what's wrong with moving it then? Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In part. "misuse of a disambiguation page" as part of the deletion rationale is directly related to the name/title of the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then how is moving to a better title a problem? If this article is acceptable, a better title is an improvement (same as adding references to an unsourced article), and if it's not, I don't see how it really matters. Nyttend (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be water under the bridge, but for what it's worth, I don't see the problem here at all. That CoM would do this to "avoid" deletion, as if the nominator wouldn't be aware of a renaming, that's pushing AfD discussion into bad faith assumptions. If this is a better title and thus makes for a better article that stands a chance of survival, then there's nothing wrong here, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- At first I arched an eyebrow on seeing the title, wondering if it was some kind of attack page. On clicking the page, I saw that it was renamed, and that it was actually a pretty good idea for a list. I'm wondering if it could be used as some kind of template/example for grouping together articles on other presidents, like Bush Jr., Ronald Reagan, or FDR. I don't know if *every* president would need a page like this, but I think it would be helpful in allowing people new to wikipedia to navigate their way through such obviously related articles. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Merge Keep Meh, sorry about all the “changing my mind”, but I'm definitely staying with this now; I've been persuaded by the comments below that this is a useful page. Easier to navigate then categories, and allows one link to a page containing all related pages, rather then lots of links to pages with small amounts of related pages. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a little more specific about what NPOV/BLP problems there are in the article at the moment? I'm not really seeing what you mean. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, though I'm not sure if a content discussion is appropriate here. OK with me for this to get moved to Talk, as long as my original !vote stays. For starters, as of now [35], the article lists 3 controversial figures as Obama's only "Associates", violating both NPOV (balance) and BLP (it is debatable whether these figures are indeed Associates.) I'm sure this simple label issue can eventually be resolved with the usual BRRRRRRANI cycle. ;-) Note that two of the three figures are already in the top-level Category:Barack_Obama. This is a side discussion only. My primary argument for delete is WP:COATRACK and WP:LISTCRUFT #7, #11 and likely #1, #6 and it is clearly redundant against self maintaining categories, summary style in-line links, and the wikiproject. IMO, if you think that cats in general could be more useful (and I agree with you), it might be better to recommend changes to the cat system to increase its usability rather than create a band-aid to work around the perceived non-usefulness. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the two links (WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:COATRACK) you (guyzero) provided are both essays. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, those essays cascade BLP and NPOV and provide a handy shortcut so I don't have to retype all of that information here. Note that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are policy. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm not a big fan of categories, personally, and find that lists are much easier and more user-friendly to maneuver through. I've never been a big fan of the "delete because its redundant to a category" notion, because I don't think its really a good reason for deletion. I tend to think lists at their best can be more complimentary than redundant. Just my $.02Umbralcorax (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It "helpfully" links to controversial figures, creating WP:BLP violations using guilt-by-association, and it "helpfully" links to attack books written by the likes of Jerome Corsi. We already have categories and templates that accomplish this purpose perfectly adequately. Smells like a WP:COATRACK designed to get around the lack of support for putting some of this stuff in a "see also" section at Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks S Marshall for your knowledge of fancy templates and stuff. I agree--that there's not enough characters populating this list, well, add the ones you think are missing. That perceived lack does not bear on the usefulness and notability of the article as a whole. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite helpful, I don't see how this meets the criteria for deletion now that it has been moved. — Jake Wartenberg 20:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm.... it is useful, but it seems a little out of place navigation-wise. Maybe renaming it or moving it to a portal space (but leaving a redirect from main space) will do the trick. The "coatrack" aspect can probably be kept in check by pruning anything too tangential or avoiding using the headings as accusations (e.g. listing Bill Ayers as an "associate"). However, I think that navigation pages are by definition not coatracks, they're just helpful tools. They're the mounting plate, not the rack. Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Egads what a clunky idea this was; the page simply looks like a dumping ground for a link to every possible Obama-related article, dubious or otherwise. Per Onorem, this seems to be precisely what WP:SELF seeks to avoid, and it sohuld be moved to a portal if it is to be kept at all. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a related WikiProject or Portal It is a disambiguation page, but not one that is properly sorted. The article name Barack Obama (disambiguation) is just incorrect, as that would only be appropriate if there was multiple Barack Obamas. The current title List of articles related to Barack Obama, reflects a list article, not a disambiguation page which its trying to be. Disambiguation pages also do not normally have a ton of templates, categories, etc. An all-inclusive list about Barack Obama would be better suited on a Barack Obama/U.S. Presidents Portal or WikiProject, and not in the article namespace where the link will virtually be an orphan. — Moe ε 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have deleted the redirect left behind at Barack Obama (disambiguation) as there is no justification for its continued existence. There's no call for a disambiguation page since there is essentially only one Barack Obama, and there is no need for an article to exist that says it's a disambiguation page when it isn't. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful. Part of the problem with the summary style is that it spawns a ridiculous amount of other articles, and they aren't particularly easy to find. This helps. Arkon (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article appears to be orphaned [36] so it's questionable what navigational purpose it serves, the typical user isn't going to type "List of articles related to Barack Obama" into the search bar. Where is it suggested that this page be linked from? Categories and navigational templates - which typically link from every page that they include - would seem to be a better solution. Guest9999 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's brand new so you are correct that it hasn't been linked to yet. But it seems like it would be a very helpful "see also" or even a regular wikilink if it's kept in article space. People seem to be having trouble finding topics in the main article where there's a lot of text to go through. And there are lots and lots of these articles and many of them aren't linked to in the main article, so it's expecting a lot of readers that they would be able to guess which ones exist and what they're called. The various Obama articles could also link to it. I'm hoping that if a prominent link is provided to this list of page, editors will have an easier time finding what they're looking for. This will also, hopefully, cut down on content being added to one article when it already exists in another article. I think this happens a lot because people don't know what other articles exist. This list of article also seems to be a very helpful layout that can include subheading and details not available in the categories (which aren't used by many readers) or the templates (which also aren't used by many of our readers and which are themselves cumbersome and numerous when it comes to Obama related subjects). ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main article has a template that links to all the related daughter articles, and all the relevant articles are categorized. This is just an unnecessary page of linkcruft to reduce the number of steps between Barack Obama and [[Article that smears Obama]], as far as I can tell, because it certainly doesn't seem to serve any other purpose. Do we have any evidence at all of this claim that "people are having trouble finding topics in the main article?" The main article is a summary style article with sections and "mainlinks" to all the important stuff. Who is going to type "List of articles related to Barack Obama" into the search box? Nobody. So the next phase in the master plan will be to, presumably, stick a link to this unnecessary page in all the listed articles. Am I right? To me, this looks like a BLP-violation-by-stealth. Also, I don't take kindly to the suggestion that I nominated this article for deletion as "improper behavior" - that's a bad faith assumption if ever there was one. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any evidence at all of this claim that "people are having trouble finding topics in the main article"? --Yes, see my vote. Might also be best to not throw around accusation of bad faith in the same breath where you say This is just an unnecessary page of linkcruft to reduce the number of steps between Barack Obama and [[Article that smears Obama]]. Arkon (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you scroll down to the bottom of the "article", you will see templates that already provide grouped navigation of the same links. They render this "Article" completely redundant. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the list under discussion needs a copy of every navbox, but that's something to work out editorially. On the other hand, I specifically don't think that the existence of the navboxes make the list redundant, which is why I specifiaclly said, above, that I don't think that the existence of the navboxes makes the list redundant. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really is an unnecessary duplication of Category:Barack Obama. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it is not. As we've now noted that you disagree with my opinion, there seems little else to say here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Portalise From Wikipedia:Portal "The idea of a portal is to help readers and/or editors navigate their way through Wikipedia topic areas" (emphasis added). Portal space is where self referential, navigation like this belongs, I don't see why a Portal:Barack Obama shouldn't exist, that is effectively what the editors supporting this page are arguing for anyway. Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the precedent set by all the articles in Category:Topical indexes. Personally I don't like them and I think the reasoning given here by myself and many other editors holds but you can't really deal with a whole class of article at a single AFD, a wider discussion is needed. Guest9999 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tired of seeing another pointless U.S. politics soap-drama which occurs on daily basis by "the Wiki-Obama cabal". The navigational function is already well covered by {{Barack Obama}} and Category:Barack Obama and I don't see why we have to keep the redundant list. The sections like "Education", and many entries of "Miscellaneous" unnecessarily inflate the list. Wikipedia is not an anti or a pro-Obama site, so do we need to know about his education up to his elementary school period? However, the nominator's grief over the title change is irony and looks like a tit-for-tat (recalling his unconventional division of "support" and "oppose" to an AfD). Anyway, if anyone argues that the two can not cover "everything about Obama", well, improve the template first.--Caspian blue 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as the original prodder of the disambiguation page. The other page is a list that should be categorized and deleted. It is a self-reference list (meaning a list that can only be referenced by Wikipedia, which is contradictory) and if needed solely for navigation purposes, and that is not the purpose of a list (but it is a purpose of a category) and should be deleted likewise. Tavix |  Talk  23:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLN; a certain amount of redundancy between different navigation formats is acceptable, and this has important structural differences that set it apart from navigational footers, portals or categories. As kelapstick points out above, we have a whole class of very helpful pages of this type including Outline of anarchism, outline of Canada etc. As with portals, a topic deserves treatment of this sort iff it is discrete and contains enough articles to make the effort worthwhile, of which there is no doubt here. There are no neutrality, verifiability, copyright or conflict of interest issues, and it provides added guidance for readers, so it's an uncontroversial keep in my opinion. Skomorokh 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a list of articles arranged by subject. A portal is a different animal entirely: an intro about the topic, one or two showcased articles, a showcased image, DYKs and news, and perhaps a few WP:SELFREF links. An Obama portal would be a great idea in my opinion, but it is of little relevance to the tenability of this list. Skomorokh 03:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the second time this article has been moved mid-AfD, which is really rather unhelpful. Please let the AfD process play out before bouncing it around somewhere else, if at all possible. The new title only serves to demonstrate how truly redundant and self-referencing this listcruft is. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One should only "assume" good faith until one has a body of evidence to determine whether faith would be well or ill-placed.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you just says go directly against WP:AGF, I strongly suggest you at least read the "nutshell" on that page. If you wish to contuine this please keep it on your's or mine talk page, which is where it belongs (and I tried to place it). Thankyou - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While not ideally phrased by Bali ultimate, the coatrack issue is of great concern. This will result in arguing about what is and what is not related to Obama. There is no question that this article was created because consensus was against a "see also" section at Barack Obama. Creating articles to get around consensus is basically forking, so it is not unreasonable to question the good faith of the creator with these facts in mind. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange argument to use. You would have to assume bad faith (or rather, claim bad faith) to say that they're creating articles to get around consensus in the first place. --Raijinili (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem at all strange when you read this thread. It was essentially discussing that there was not enough criticism at Barack Obama, despite a consensus agreeing otherwise. This article was conceived as a solution to that perceived problem, which makes it an intentional POV fork as I see it. How does one AGF under those circumstances? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still strange. Instead of saying that they're forking, thus they're acting in bad faith, you can simplify your argument by saying that their bad faith is shown by <evidence of intention to go against consensus>. It's like saying "This person stabbed me as an act of revenge, and thus I think they have something against me." I'm saying that the claim of "revenge" is a claim in itself that they have something against the speaker. It's just nitpicking, though. --Raijinili (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are some 19 templates (most of them collapsed) at the very bottom of the Barack Obama article and dozens of categories jumbled together. So a better approach is clearly needed. This list article is an easy to navigate and well organized grouping of subjects related to Obama. It aids readers, many of whom don't link to categories or know how to use template links, in locating subjects they're looking for and provides access to our Obama coverage from one simple and straightforward wikilink or see also. It also has the benefit of reducing the amount of maintenance required on articles where content is added repeatedly because it isn't apparent that the material already exists elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots and lots of people have commented that we don't cover certain issues when we do, so clearly they don't know where to look. Maybe "understand" was the wrong word, but I know lots of people don't use categories and templates properly. How many times are comments meant for AfD discussion posted on talk pages because article creators (not casual readers mind you) didn't see the link in the template? It's great that there are infoboxes templates and categories, and once you know how to use them properly they can be quite useful, but the casual reader is far more likely to use a wikilink or a see also link. Someone else told me how hard they found it to find articles they knew existed and were looking for, so that further expands my carefully controlled study sample size (a doubling actually) to two, because I also find it difficult to navigate these articles. And I would also like to point out again that the categories for that page and the templates are numerous and jumbled. This article page is a very clean and clear and easy to navigate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But would the same people who don't look through the templates click on a "List of..." link in a "See also" section?
  • It seems to me that there will always be people who complain about content missing if it's in a different article. There will always be those that use Ctrl+F to try to find the one issue they really care about in the article. (No, I'm not referring to anyone, since I've not really looked at these "missing content" complaints.) --Raijinili (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that CoM may be thinking this is a bigger problem than it really is. Templates are nothing but lists of links, and people who create articles do know that blue text means you can click on it and go somewhere else. Now, people may not bother to look at the links in the template, but that is a different issue. LadyofShalott Weave 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. CoM says that "the casual reader is far more likely to use a wikilink." That is precisely the point. Barack Obama is a featured article, and it is highly likely that all but a few relevant Obama articles are linked within the article, and the rest are swept up by the templates and category. Things that are less relevant or not relevant are either relegated to the templates, or rightly excluded. I can see the value of a portal, but this article is just a pointless, self-referencing list. I remain convinced that the true purpose of this list is to give greater weight to articles that are only tangentially-related to Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your misgivings about the creator's intent, do you have specific NPOV concerns about the article as it is now? --Raijinili (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. For example, it links to an article about the Birther fringe theory, violating WP:BLP with guilt-by-association. But I nominated it for deletion because of it being a redundant rehash of templates and categories (the dab issue is obviously no longer the case), rather than NPOV concerns. This "article" has no intrinsic value whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not guilt by association at all. The Ayers and Wright links are closer to guilt by association, though I would consider them more articles reporting guilt by association. The links are definitely about Obama, and they even appear in the category. If they're given any more visible prominence in the list than in the category, I say it's only because the list groups them together and is generally more organized. Other than that, if a list is much more likely to be viewed than a category, I'd say that's an argument for it not being useless.
I don't have any argument against redundancy, and that's not my concern here. --Raijinili (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the technical reasons described in WP:SELF. I don't find the "let's make it easier for the casual reader" arguments persuasive; will we be pasting that whole list of articles into the lead of the Barack Obama article next, to make it easier still? The catagories, templates and even the Search button at the side of your screen already suffice to cover the ease of navigation issues, in my opinion. The portal idea has some merit. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment: Categories and templates, maybe, but I don't think "Search" is very easy to navigate. Well, categories (which are sorted in alphabetical order) are also quite intimidating and either unorganized (in a topical way) or spread across subpages (i.e. more pageloads). --Raijinili (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ASE, I have to disagree with you here. WP:SELF is a guideline, not policy, and the population of Category:Topical indexes would indicate that we're either making a distinction that I don't understand, or we tend to ignore that guideline. (I'm not sure which it is.) LadyofShalott 05:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see your point, and agree. But it's still nothing more than skirting.. for this page and all of those listed at Category:Topical indexes. What's the point in having categories if we're going to put all of the same content on a page and place it in a category too? - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Different people like to look at things in different ways? I might see something when I look at information presented one way, and notice something else when presented another way... The redundant department of redundancy isn't always a bad thing. ;-) LadyofShalott 06:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved again? It isn't even a list of topics. Let's just move it to Coatrack of Barack Obama and be done with it. It's just another place for someone to hang birther/terrorist/muslim foo. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (I have already voted above, so don't count this as another delete, for the record) One of the issues I have with this is, where and how would readers ever arrive at this article? I doubt many, if any, would ever think to one is going to type in the "List of topics..." name into a search box. It shouldn't go into a "See also" section of any article, as that would effectively be an end-around method of getting the "controversies" secion linked to the main biographical bage for Obama. Same with trying to link it from a navbar. All it does is duplicate the categories, templates, and navboxes already present in many of the articles, and in a far more clunkier and unhelpful manner. There is nothing innovative about an article that is a list of other articles. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Huller

edit
Stephan Huller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Obvious conflict of interest. Contested PROD. Unsourced. Does not pass WP:Creative Wperdue (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep. Nakon 05:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Israel relations

edit
Chile–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no bilateral relationship between these two countries that rises to the state of encyclopedically notable. That is to say, there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss this relationship (as a topic) in anything beyond non-trivial depth. The stub as it stands currently is completely unsourced to boot. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon the "meat" was all primary Israeli government press releases that noted 1. Golda once went to chile. 2. A chilean leader went to israel once too. So please don't hold that up as having accomplished much in 10 minutes.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that this is no lost cause and you have to give an article time so it can grow. Not all sources must be independent, but when there are independent sources, they can and should be used. But for the time being, the article has been expanded in a minor way and fully sourced. What does it hurt to leave it? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And all I'm saying is: The article has been here for over 3 months without a single source (unreliable or reliable -- nada, zip, kosong, kurang, etc...) that might possibly establish notability. You, as a concerned citizen who for some reason wants this article retained, spends time on the matter -- and comes up with a couple of unreliable sources. So, as far as i'm concerned, your efforts so far strengthen support for deletion. That is, your effort only yielded sources that kind of define "epic fail" when it comes to policy. So if you meant something else and you care about policy here, why'd ya bring them up, bra? (sticking with the whole "c'mon" theme). Unsourced material that can provide the pier pilings on which mendacious, encyclopedia-destroying claims can grow are the devil. Ask all major world religions but the Jains (whimps). The rest of them agree with me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never checked the age, but three months tells me that nobody has a problem with the article, and it is a legitimate part of Template:Foreign relations of Israel so many things link to the article (it seems the template is waiting for the creation of more articles to get rid of red links). The sources are reliable, since they are official sources (and since they corroborate each other). And besides, link [1] above, from Biruitorul is extremely useful and will most likely end up being used for the article eventually, especially after this discussion. My original aim was just to reference everything, making the last part of this nom moot. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, woah, what's the deal? Why did you remove my references? I reverted your move because it wasn't warranted but I don't want to start a fight with you. These are reliable sources and I think you're being far too biased on this. You nom'ed this for deletion, meaning you really shouldn't remove the refs; it's essentially a conflict of interest and makes your case stronger for illegitimate reasons. Anybody that went to look at the article to !vote in this discussion would see at as it was before I added useful content. This is poor practice, IMHO, and I think you should stop. ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mere fact that two countries exist or once existed and had ambassadors or consuls or representation through a third country does not mean that we need articles such as this. Did they form alliances, or become major trading partners, or go to war, or anything else which would have caused there to be significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources about their "relations" satisfying notability? Wikipedia is not a directory. The references are not independent, being the websites of the two countries. Edison (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response, I don't feel I have to now go scurrying through CIA pdfs, UN trade agreements, NGO publications and economics papers looking for data about Chile and Israel just because someone asks about it and their opinion matters in a deletion discussion. Assuming good faith, one expects that the material in question is there and will be supplied to the article as time permits; it takes time to edit the Wiki, it's not done on demand, Rome wasn't built in a day. That goes for all the other bilateral articles up for deletion now. --Mr Accountable (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first source provided by Biruitorul is of high quality and provides details on a close Chile-Israel relationship during the Pinochet years.--Aldux (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment Beit-Hallahmi's book leaves a full section regarding Chile-Israel relations in the 1970s and 1980s, and adds in the section (pages 98-101) quite a number of sources. But if we want additions, always from Google books [42], several passages here [43]; more recent, if not so important [44].--Aldux (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator. Plus the title is too vague (but that's a separate issue, and I understand that.) JBsupreme (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I'm going to go with Biruitorul's first sources also--I believe this could be part of a more substantial article. B., I appreciate your effort here. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems inherently notable as a topic, as the two countries do have diplomatic relations. Doesn't appear to have original research in its current state. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Biruitorul found 2 really nice sources, definitely a keeper. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep nominators claim "There is no bilateral relationship between these two countries that rises to the state of encyclopedically notable." is false, as per editor above "C'mon guys, it took me 10 min to reference the entire article and add a little meat." Ikip (talk) 00:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for this particular article there are very obviously sources. Biruitorul's argument that most or all israel-X articles will have usable material seems correct to me also. DGG (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Aldux above. Also keep as inherently notable, for the same reason we keep Blofeld's village stub articles: from time to time people will find interesting information to add, and if the stub is there, the person is more likely to go to the trouble of adding the information to Wikipedia. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. --Tone 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Shadek

edit
Lord Shadek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspicious entry - it's sourced, but Google search doesn't generate any hits for subject of the article, author, publisher and title of cited book. The content of that article is presented rather like a joke. I've explored detailed Czech sources related to 15th and 16th century, and there isn't mention about Lord Shadek. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia–South Korea relations

edit
Slovenia–South Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These two countries do not have any bilateral relationship to speak of, at least not one covered in independent, reliable sources. They do not maintain embassies in each others capitals. This stub is currently unreferenced and content free, and I see no prospect for worthwhile expansion, particularly if the notability guidelines are given any weight. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, there is a discussion about a general policy on such articles. By the way, my vote goes for delete here, there are no diplomatic relations to speak of in a separate article. --Tone 21:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stargazing (song)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Stargazing (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Download-only single that failed to chart on any national music chart. The only independent source in the article is about the artist being dropped from his music label, not about the single. Prod and prod-2 tags removed by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Lil) Green Patch

edit
(Lil) Green Patch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability. According to our own FB page there are over seven thousand applications, this is no the place to list them all. Of the 88k ghits "(lil)%2BGreen%2BPatch"&btnG=Search&meta= this is the first and on GN there are only "(lil)%2BGreen%2BPatch" two stories, which does not suggest that widespread third party coverage is going to happen, and it is certainly not there at this moment. Delete without prejudice, if it becomes the number one app then bring it back, at the moment there is little to support this having an article (or being the source of seven thousand more). Darrenhusted (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Referenced as among the top five Facebook applications. Also featured prominently in Times article. __meco (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 google news stories, a passing mention is a fluff piece is not significant coverage. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, Nakon 05:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Laws

edit
AfDs for this article:
Barney's Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

HUGE violation of WP:CRUFT. Absolutely NO sources. This belongs on a fansite, not Wikipedia. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Malformed afd with no deletion rationale given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab States Broadcasting Union

edit
Arab_States_Broadcasting_Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
  1. Speedy Keep Notable organization which is a collaboration of many other television and radio companies which already have articles themselves, newsworthy lately because of controversial decision to admit private sector content [46]. FlyingToaster 16:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's a non-profit organization, And one of Arab league agencies, So Why deleting it Peadara (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit
AfDs for this article:
Blink-182's 2nd Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article of a non-notable demo by Blink-182. It is devoid of any sources and does not comply with the music notability guideline. Timmeh! 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross

edit
Cistercian Order of the Holy Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Merge to Cistercian Order#Cistercians today, with no prejudice against splitting it out to here again once sourcing for this Cistercian order improves. There's plenty of coverage for Cistercians in general, but most of it just names the monastery, not the order. I've found a lot about the Cistercian Order of the Strict Observance, which I presume to be a different order. Regardless, it's clear that Cistercian monks and monasterys as a whole are notable--It's just not clear to me how this specific order fits into the grant scheme and/or whether its independently notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 16:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere, perhaps as Jclemens suggests. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Google Maps search shows that the "monastery" of this organization is a (small, suburban) private home. With no independent sources, this fails WP:V and WP:N. The COHC Web site admits that it is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, so merger to Cistercian Order, which is specifically about the RC order, is inappropriate. Deor (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was this is a tough one. On the one hand, he wrote a book, but it's self-published. It's in libraries, but sources haven't been found. Even DGG, who argued to keep, seems to only be arguing it weakly (with the aptly titled "week keep"). Since notability has failed to have been definitely established by both sides, and the consensus leans slightly to delete, I am closing this as delete. Wizardman 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Harrell

edit
Edgar Harrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This unreferenced BLP fails WP:N and WP:BIO as no significant discussion can be found of him in independant, reliable sources. He hasn't made the news and a regular google search only turns up some promotional and/or unreliable mentions of the book he wrote. It also appears that this article was created with a conflict of interest from User:Xulonpress with the intent on promoting the book that he wrote. ThemFromSpace 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. OCLC WorldCat does show that 50 libraries, mostly public in the US, do have the book. Edgar Harrell is not the author, an apparent relative, David Harrell wrote this "as told to by Edgar Harrell." The sinking of the USS Indianapolis (CA-35), and being a survivor, is somewhat of a big deal. I'd say the subject of this biography should be considered about the same level as a survivor of the Titanic. That being said, I can't find a list of survivors to verify that Edgar Harrell is one. Independent sources citing him are likely to be in the print universe, or in old newspapers. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do not have an article on everyone who survived. the Titanic-- see List of passengers on board RMS Titanic, and I think there would be some objections to making it automatic--though as each of them was probably interviewed extensively at least in local sources, they probably would meet the General Notability Guideline, and, as all but one of them are now dead, would not be subject to BLP1E. I can't tell how ONE EVENT and NOT NEWS would be interpreted for this, as their use seems to be arbitrary and inconsistent. DGG (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are about 30 books in Worldcat about the USS Indianapolis (CA35). The best known seems to be "In harm's way : the sinking of the USS Indianapolis and the extraordinary story of its survivors" by Doug Stanton. Any of them might well contain additional information about him. Proof of his being there and a survivor is at [48]. I would solve the dilemma of whether to include every survivor , here or in the titanic, by including at least those about whom an individual book had been written and published, including autobiographies. This one, true, is self-published, but is apparently of enough interest that multiple libraries have bought it, which they rarely do for self-published books. DGG (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete No evidence the book achieved notability, or that the author did. From the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people):"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Writing a book does not guarantee an encyclopedia article about either the book or the author. Being on a ship sunk in a war likewise does not provide inherent notability. Surviving a catastrophe does not provide automatic notability, any more than being killed in such an event does. That said, the entire book can be read at Google Books [49] and I have no doubt of Harrell being a survivor of the sinking. He says (p162) that an interview with him was published in the Louisville Times, August 15, 1945. Someone with access to microfilm of the paper could verify the basic survivor status by finding it. But being a survivor of a ship sinking would in no way show that he should have an article. Edison (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the argument is that he is more notable than the others, because he wrote a book on it. DGG (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IrishJack

edit
AfDs for this article:
IrishJack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has been tagged for cleanup for more than a year, but in that time, no verifiable references have been provided to indicate that the breed is notable. I recommend a delete rather than a merge to Jack Russell Terrier unless some reliable source can be located to establish that this is a recognized variety, and not just marketing on behalf of one or several kennels. Shunpiker (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New_Garden_Friends_School

edit
AfDs for this article:
New_Garden_Friends_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

On grounds of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickenbombz (talk • contribs) — Chickenbombz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Speedy keep per above. And hey, catch this! tedder (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its definitely snowing. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per past AfD consensus, further explained in WP:LOCAL, high schools are almost always notable within their community, and non-trivial coverage is usually found if one is willing to look hard enough - however in many cases (this seems to be one of them) finding that coverage may mean digging through newspaper microfilms or archives at a brick and mortar library if online sources aren't available. If the referencing requirements cannot be met for the article to stand on its own power - merging with something suitable (school district, city/ town/ county, etc...) is more appropriate than deletion - since notability is assumed and it creates a starting point for splitting back into its own article when sources are eventually found. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 15:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As several have noted, high schools usually are notable due to their local importance, and this preK-12 school includes a high school. I found and added a third-party source (an 1984 article in an educational journal), which helps to establish notability. Since this is an independent school not affiliated with any school district, merger to a school district article would not be appropriate. --Orlady (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One independent source has been provided, and it is to be hoped that more may be found. By itself a single source fails to demonstrate notability, but precedent indicates that high schools are considered to be notable. I do not see how this school should be considered less notable than a high school for accepting a broader age range of pupils. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon A Time In Mumbai

edit
AfDs for this article:
Once Upon A Time In Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a movie promo, and no references as well KrishGR (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Touchables

edit
The Touchables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no verifiable sources, "source" is self-published and blacklisted Stealthound (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer)

edit
Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article and related sub-articles are a hoax. Jorge Ferreira is presented as a huge Portuguese musician, when in fact he is a minor Pimba Portuguese American musician. I am also nominating the following related pages because they have no notability and sources, they are just an article for each and every one of Jorge Ferreira's records (including singles and compilations):

Amar Como Jesus Amou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viva Fall River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Os Olhos De Minha Mãe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Baile Dos Passarinhos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Papai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carro Preto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mãe Ja Partiste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Encontro Em "Fall River" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sonho Desfeito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Não Há Gente Como A Gente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deixei Meu Coração Em Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olhos Verdes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recordar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Regresso Prometido (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nos Arraiais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Era Pouco E Acabou-se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canta Natal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prova De Amor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13 De Maio Na Cova De Iria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Natal Em Familia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Revelações Do Milénio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Açoriano De Raiz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eu Voltarei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A Chupeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Como Este Mundo Mudou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vem Agosto, Vem Agosto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As Velhas E Os Solteirões (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bendito Seja Agosto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Natal com Jorge Ferreira e Família (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meu Coração Bate Por Ti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
É Bom É Bom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Manel Aperta O Cinto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20 Canções - 20 Sucessos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Álbum de Recordações (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ao Vivo Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O Melhor De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Êxitos Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Êxitos Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Êxitos Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
...De Colección (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Antologia Sucessos 1983–1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Êxitos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ao Vivo em Ponte da Barca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viva Fall River (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quando Vai Chegar A Paz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Viva, Viva New Bedford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O Mundo Triste (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chau / Canção Das Crianças (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
O Sol Ainda Está Fora / Carta Aos Meus Amiguinhos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Este Natal Santo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following related images should also be deleted:

File:Jorge Ferreira WKPD.JPG
File:Jorge Ferreira - Amar Como Jesus Amou (LP album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva Fall River (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Os Olhos De Minha Mãe (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Baile Dos Passarinhos (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Papai (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Carro Preto (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Mãe Já Partiste (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Sonho Desfeito (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Não Há Gente Como A Gente (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Deixei Meu Coração Em Portugal (LP album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Olhos Verdes (US Version Clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Recordar (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Regresso Prometido (US Version) - Large view.jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Nos Arraiais (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Era Pouco E Acabou-se (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Canta Natal (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Prova De Amor (US Version).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - 13 De Maio Na Cova De Iria (CD album) - Large view.jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Natal Em Familia (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Revelações Do Milénio (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Açoriano De Raiz (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Eu Voltarei (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - A Chupeta (US Version).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Como Este Mundo Mudou (US Version).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Vem Agosto, Vem Agosto (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - As Velhas E Os Solteirões (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Bendito Seja Agosto (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Natal Com Jorge Ferreira E Familia (CD album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Meu Coração Bate Por Ti (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - É Bom É Bom (CD album) - Large view.jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Manel Aperta O Cinto (US Version).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Ao Vivo Vol. 1 (CD album).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - O Melhor De (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 1 (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor Dos Emigrantes Vol. 1 (CD compilation clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 2 (US Version).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor Dos Emigrantes Vol. 2 (CD compilation clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Super Êxitos Vol. 3 (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira & Liz Marie - ...De Colección (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Antologia Sucessos 1983 - 1988 (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Êxitos (CD compilation).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Cantor dos Emigrantes Vol. 3 (CD compilation clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Ao Vivo em Ponte da Barca (MP3 album clean).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - O Mundo Triste (45 RPM single).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva Fall River (EP LP).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Este Natal Santo (MP3 single).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Viva, Viva New Bedford (EP LP).jpg
File:Jorge Ferreira - Quando Vai Chegar A Paz (EP LP).jpg

These articles and images are basically the result of the work of a very limited number of editors (see Contributors):

Despite these, Nhl4hamilton and User:Hello Control (good faith established editor) also tried to do something with the article so that it could be acceptable. They failed due to the actions of the aforementioned editors whom I believe are the same person or organization. Notice that they have the same manner of editing - they hardly or never explain their actions in the talk page (and there have been some discussions about the notability and sources in the article's talk page), they never reply to questions made in their respective talk pages, and they never make any edit sumaries.

Also, and this is the main reason for this deletion proposal, Jorge Ferreira is presented as a huge Portuguese musician and even as a symbol of Portuguese culture. I, as a Portuguese have never heard of him. But of course I am not a reliable source. That is the point exactly. No reliable source is presented for the article and sub-articles in question - notice the references in the article, they are either a small interview in a local newspaper or basically spam! The editor, namely Robotixi, just ignores all the maintenance tags (and is continuously removing them) and continues to add details and statements of grandeur about this obscure musician (going to the point of adding paragraphs about him in a diversity of non-related articles such as New England). I believe that this article and sub-articles (and their number is huge, along with images uploaded) is a propaganda hoax, trying to give notability through wikipedia to a singer that has little to start with.

User Husond also believes this to be a blantant case of WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:VSCA

It should be deleted and the mentioned main editor investigated for sockpuppetry. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Delete Unless better sources than the subject's hometown newspaper or his web site can be found to verify all the gold records he is claimed to have here and in Portugal. The local paper article sounds like it is quoting his press release. On the talk page of the article, editors have stated they have not been able to find his "hits" in the relevant Portuguese music charts. His "big hit" Viva Fall River (EP) is claimed to have sold 10,000 copies and to be a "gold record," but in the US it takes at least 500,000 copies sold to get that recognition per RIAA. Better referencing than the singer's web site is necessary. Edison (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe relevant, maybe not: The article has apparently be deleted from ptwiki [50]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utter vanispamcruftisement. Húsönd 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ola bom dia Ogre. Eu apresento-me : o meu nome é Claudio Fernandes, sou o usuario chamado Robotixi (CFernandes75). Sou filho de emigrantes madeirenses em Paris e tenho 27 anos. Em primeiro, eu queria pedir desculpa a todos aqueles a quem eu não falei sobre o meu artigo, incluindo você. Sou um grande fan do cantor Jorge Ferreira, que eu escuto desde os meus 5 anos de idade. É verdade que este cantor tem mais sucesso no estrangeiro, principalmente nos Estados Unidos, do que em Portugal mesmo, porque éle é um cantor da emigração portuguesa. De facto, em vista dos anos desde que eu o escuto, este cantor tem um valor muito importante para mim, sentimental, afectual, familiar e nostalgico. Quem sabe apreciar a musica, a voz, o talento deste artista em todas as suas canções descobre um grande senhor da musica popular portuguesa, com mais de 30 anos de carreira, um grande cantor português exceptional, que normalmente hoje em dia devia ter ainda mais sucesso e ainda mais fama do que actualmente, pois este cantor não é reconhecido ao seu real valor. Eu sempre defendi o Jorge Ferreira em toda parte, eu sempre defendi a minha pagina neste Wikipedia, e sempre continuarei de o fazer. A explicação das minhas cancelações dos seus manutenciamentos é muito simples : Cada vez que eu escrevo um detalhe no meu artigo, para mim eu penso que a notabilidade esta posta. Ou cada vez que eu ponho uma referência, eu penso que o artigo ja esta mais credivél. Eu não conheço muito o funcionamento de Wikipedia e queria vos pedir perdão e também ajuda. É por isso que eu pesso a você para não cancelar a pagina Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer), por favor. Eu estou pronto a contacta-o para falar com você fora do Wikipedia, no seu E-mail personal, se você quer, e também posso o dar o meu e-mail personal. Assim, a gente fala-se os dois, a dizer-me por favor qual são exactamente as partes do meu artigo que não passa a vista, que falta referência ou que esta mal escrito, o que falta, etc... Eu farei o maximo para reescrever o meu artigo com a vossa ajuda, e também tomarei eu a ocasião para aprender com você o sistema do Wikipedia. Mais por favor, seja indulgente, não cancela o meu artigo !! Eu espero ansiosamente uma resposta sua. Muito obrigado. Robofr 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a machine translation of Robotixi's comment — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Hello and good day Ogre. Let me introduce myself: my name is Claudio Fernandes, and I'm the user called Robotixi (CFernandes75). I am the son of Madeiran immigrants in Paris and I have 27 years. First, I wanted to apologize to all of those to whom I did not talk about my article, including you. I am a big fan of singer Jorge Ferreira, which I listen since I was 5 years of age. It is true that this singer has more success abroad, especially in the United States, than in Portugal itsef, because he is a singer of Portuguese emigration. Indeed, in view of the years I have been listening to this singer, he has a very important value for me, sentimental, of feelings, family-connected and nostalgic. Those of are able to enjoy the music, the voice, the talent of this artist in all his songs find a great master of Portuguese popular music, with over 30 years of career, a great singer Portuguese exceptional, which normally today should have more success and fame more than now, because this singer is not recognized for its real value. I have always defended Jorge Ferreira everywhere, I have always defended my page in Wikipedia, and will always continue to do so. The explanation for my removel of your maintenance tags is very simple: Each time I write a detail in my article, I think that notability is proven. Or every time I put a reference, I think the article is more credible. I do not know much about Wikipedia functioning, and I wanted to ask for your forgiveness and help. That is why I ask you personally not to delete the page Jorge Ferreira (Portuguese singer), please. I am ready to contact you and talk to you outside of Wikipedia, in your personal e-mail, and, if you want, I can also give you my personal e-mail. Thus, we two can talk, so you can tell me please which exactly are the parts of my article that do not pass inspection, lack references or is poorly written, what's missing, etc ... I will do my best to rewrite my article with your help, and I also take this opportunity to learn from you the system of Wikipedia. Even more, please, be indulgent, do not cancel my article! I eagerly await your answer. Thank you very much.

    • Robofr, this is the English Wikipedia, please use English in your comments. The fact that you admire this singer so much is unfortunately not enough for him to have an article on Wikipedia. We have criteria for notability that one must meet before having an article on themselves. Please read the criteria for inclusion. Hmm, do I recognize your signature from somewhere? Húsönd 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--phew, that will be one fell swoop if the AfD ends with 'delete.' I see no evidence whatsoever of this person's notability, or of that of the many records. With appreciation for nominator's blood, sweat, and tears. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually have "A Portuguesa É A Mais Linda" in my playlist, but this is some serious cruft here. If - if - a neutral biography of Ferreira can be written, then I have no prejudice against recreation, but what we have now is just excessive. - Biruitorul Talk 01:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all collected articles. This singer is largely unknown in Portugal, and certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. Same goes for the articles about his songs. Flamarande (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable/hoax. To the closing admin, you have your work cut out for you. :) TheAE talk/sign 19:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines-Singapore relations

edit
Philippines-Singapore relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the general notability guideline, not to mention the fact that it was created to DISRUPT Wikipedia by a user, currently blocked, who has threatened to embark on a campaign of sneaky vandalism MyDog22 (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — MyDog22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carnography

edit
Carnography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just an article with a dicdef of a neologism. Only cites list duplicate use of term, but do not demonstrate widespread use or notability. Only info about the term that'd be encyclopedic is already be covered on one of a number of similar articles such as Splatter film, Slasher film, etc. DreamGuy (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand upon that claim? Have you actually looked at the content on the pages the links go to? Because, having seen them, there's not much there. DreamGuy (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not even much of a neologism, as the reference from Time magazine dates back to 1972 while referring to the novel First Blood (That's the novel, not even the later film with Sly). Needs work but doesn't need deleting. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutral, see comment below. Whether this is technically a neologism or not, it would appear to be a word with very little currency. The apparent majority of Google searches seems to bring forth exactly what we're doing: wondering whether this is a real word, and tracing its apparent origin. The references given attest only to its sporadic appearance in print, decades apart, in articles devoted to other subjects; they aren't about "carnography" itself, and as such do not count as substantial treatments of the underlying idea. The substance of the article is more than adequately covered under titles such as splatter film and violence in the media. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it's still not notable enough for an article. We're not Wiktionary/Urban dictionary. So any slang term documented in a handful of sources means that we should write an article about it? Give me a break. DreamGuy (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the article currently contains more than a dictionary entry would, and there is a lot more that can be said about the subject. But of course, you are entitled to your opinion as well. Also, I wouldn't call it a slang term; it's more of a literary criticism term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Definitely a keeper now. Nice job. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a "literary criticism" term. I would say that it's a tendentious term, apparently invented by people who disapprove of graphic violence in entertainment, coined in order to make a suspect analogy to pornography. It's one of those words that encapsulates an entire point of view, and as such any article that raises the word to the status of an encyclopedia subject appears to endorse it and seems non-neutral: especially since people who don't endorse the underlying idea are unlikely to use the word. That said, we can have articles on similar pejorative labels, and the new version is much improved. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good points Smerdis, and ones I think should most definitely be taken into account when editing or expanding the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep never heard this word before. its definitely obscure in use, but within the genres that its used to discuss, it has some provenance. as long as the article reflects its use primarily within film and literary criticism, and is NOT a commonly used word, it should stay. i think its a neat word now that ive heard it, but i wouldnt use it myself, for fear of sounding like a postmodern geekazoid critic.i added link (from an ip address) that seems relevant, one of its earlier uses. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New to me also. Shows the benefit of a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual subject of the commentary introduced into this article seems to be Violent media--pejoratively termed "carnography," as Smerdis notes. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and because of NPOV, Wikipedia shouldn't have articles on various loaded words that all denote the same topic--those would be POV forks. To avoid the basic POV problem, which Smerdis also recognized, a merge of some of this material into Violent media seems in order. As for the etymology of the word "carnography," that material belongs nowhere on Wikipedia, because, again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep per notability and tremendous efforts by User:LinguistAtLarge. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I'm closing the nomination because the nominator suggested a merge, which does not require deletion to take place. Mgm|(talk) 22:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland 1920-1963

edit
Northern Ireland 1920-1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article that's highly unlikely to stand on its own; I'd suggest a merge with the main article, Northern Ireland. I'mperator 12:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of India Hospitals, Ambulance, Blood Banks, Pharmacy and all other Medical Amenities

edit
List of India Hospitals, Ambulance, Blood Banks, Pharmacy and all other Medical Amenities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant cuckold

edit
Dominant cuckold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although this term certainly occurs on various Internet forums, I cannot see any mention of it in any source that qualifies for WP:RS. The Anome (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politainment

edit
Politainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

What is Wikipedia NOT? Not a dictionary, is what. MyDog22 (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep with option to reconsider. I agree with Rjanag that this article could well be expanded. Had it been tagged for the year since the last substantial edits, I would likely !vote differently. However, I'm willing to give this article a chance, tag it for expansion/improvement, and revisit this discussion in 3–6 months if improvement doesn't happen. —C.Fred (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the International Encyclopedia of Communication can make an article out of it, our entry is salvagable too. We should give it at least a month to develop before we consider deletion on something that can be whipped into shape with a little effort. - Mgm|(talk) 22:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete G4. Article was substantially the same as Leon Ousby, which was deleted after much tomfoolery last year. Given the lack of sources, attack content, and the previous discussion, I find it hard to believe that the article was recreated in good faith. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ousby

edit
Lee Ousby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think this is a hoax, and if it is about a real person it is an attack page. I think this article or a similar article about an allegedly alcoholic English stage actor playing in Perth was nominated for AfD before and deleted. Note most of the refs appear to be bogus. Grahame (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Van

edit
AfDs for this article:
Eric Van (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a vanity article about a non-notable person. It has survived several nominations for deletion in the past due to support from his web forum. This man is not notable and is not "widely known" around Boston like previous defenders have stated.

  • Comment - Always interesting to see a 4th nomination. One problem is that article may be autobiographic, at least in part, but that is not a reason to delete, even if true. Biggest problem - lack of reliable sources. There is one very puffy profile in the Boston Globe [[53]] - Van was a contributor to the Boston Globe at the time, so it is a bit incestuous. The general notability guideline says that for a presumption of notability we need: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - it seems to me that we have here somewhat significant coverage in only one reliable source, one that is not in this case demonstrably independent of the subject. Springnuts (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean up - The Boston.com article about him clearly meets GNG, but I do agree that it's very much a vanity article. The article should focus on Sabermetrics, and the "Science Fiction" and "Rock Criticism" nonsense should be removed, since he has apparently done nothing notable in those fields. We also need to remove/integrate some of the external links as references, and remove the over-descriptive names. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. On reflection, there is not enough here to keep the article as it stands. Find more RS and it just needs a good cleaning and de-puffering. Springnuts (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (Janors) the subject does not meet WP:BIO and lacks ample reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one nice article about a local stats obsessive in the Boston Globe does not an encyclopedic subject make. The other source is to some fan site with blog-like editorial standards per this [54]. And that's it after 3 previous noms? That may be the most convincing evidence he's non-notable of all. All those pitched battles over notability and we're still sitting on this stinking pile? (by the way, I'm a yankees fan but must admit Sons of Sam Horn is the best fan-blog for baseball i've ever seen... but i digress).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sanjeev Naik

edit
Dr. Sanjeev Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. This article, written as an advert, is about an Indian mayor, but does not assert the person's notability and does not appear to meet wp:politician. There's paragraphs of the person's accomplishments here, but most is pure puffery and not verified... for instance, what does it mean to "conceptualize" a sewage plant?Changing to Keep per MuggledThud's helpful sourcing. FlyingToaster 05:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree: more positive achievements should certainly be added here. The creator of the article has repeatedly asserted Naik's involvement in the building of the Morbe dam to provide local water, local waste management initiatives, large-scale literacy initiatives and others: see the edit history for details. So far I've only been able to find info about this on blogs & similarly unreliable sources which don't meet WP:RS, but we should keep looking. The mainstream press in India seem to carry mainly negative stories about him, which might reflect press bias rather than the subject's actual achievements in office. MuffledThud (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article genocide per WP:SNOW. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedroom genocide

edit
Bedroom genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently non-notable racist fringe concept, sourced only to one author. rootology (C)(T) 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 06:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Makim Khalisadar

edit
Abdul Makim Khalisadar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP1E, notable for only one crime. No lasting notability. BJTalk 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. Appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E, but the BBC article cited in the references does say he "was well known for giving religious talks"[55] which indicates broader notability, and other sources also make this claim; however, I find no RS documentation of him before the crime, so I suppose this should be interpreted more as "locally well-known" which does not confer notability. Cool3 (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is focused on Abdul Makim Khalisadar, but it relates to, and evidences, much broader issues: Khalisadar was a well-known preacher at the UK's largest mosque; seven others from the mosque lied and said that Khalisadar was at the mosque when the rape was committed. The issue here is that Kafira (non-Muslim women) are not considered full people by many ardent Muslims. That made the rape seem much less bad, in the eyes of Khalisadar and his friends. Rather than deleting this article, Wikipedia should have other articles discuss those issues and link to Abdul Makim Khalisadar as one of the pieces of evidence or references. RomanLady (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability is both as a preacher and a criminal. The intersection is also considered by the general public to add notability, hence the press attention The sources are impeccable. DGG (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator - his only notability is for one crime. I found nothing to indicate that he is/was notable for any other reason. --Michig (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article on the event. This article violates the biography of living person's one event rule. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RomanLady. I agree completely with her first sentence: "The article is focused on Abdul Makim Khalisadar, but it relates to, and evidences, much broader issues." The article is a coatrack, not primarily concerned about this one incident, but masquerading as a biography. Otherwise, it's a one-time news story because of his religious affiliation, with no sustained coverage, which doesn't indicate any historical significance. Dominic·t 06:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Yin Yang Yo

edit
Wizards of Yin Yang Yo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No google hits or sources. Fails our verifiability policy. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Persons in the Bible

edit
Sacred Persons in the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be mostly the author's interpretation of the Bible (ie, original research), rather than based on any serious scholarship. What's the "Jewish Church", anyway? Also by this editor are Church abuse and Spiritual distress, which are nearly as bad and should themselves be considered for deletion. Biruitorul Talk 03:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Daniel Benjamin Buxton. MBisanz talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Buxton

edit
Daniel Buxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable musician - article relies heavily on his myspace page, no widespread 3rd party coverage, no awards, no charts, has released only one self-funded EP TheClashFan (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Extremely premature for an NC appeal, this should be at WP:DRV so soon. MBisanz talk 03:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katarzyna Dolinska

edit
AfDs for this article:
Katarzyna Dolinska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject fails both general notability requirements and notability requirements for models. No evidence of notability has ever been presented, all sources in article either fail WP:RS or fail to establish notability. L0b0t (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red cunt hair

edit
AfDs for this article:
Red cunt hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Per NOTDIC The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC) ::Note to admin - nominator has withdrawn (see below) pablohablo. 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can only be closed if the nominator withdraws AND nobody else votes delete. This has delete votes (and clearly SHOULD be deleted) so it cannot be closed early. DreamGuy (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per this, if the issues addressed in the delete votes were addressed, then the nom is considered withdrawn, and then an admin can close it. So to be fixed mainly is the expansion beyond a WP:NOTDIC. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - DreamGuy is right - relevant policy is tucked away here pablohablo. 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Far more than a dictionary definition; in previous AFD we established notability with literary references that have been added. This expression is exactly the sort of thing that Wikipedia can cater to well; it;s used within niche circles of society (engineers etc), and 'outsiders' will turn to Wikipedia to see what it's all about. It is encyclopaedic; the scope could be broadened, althought his make take time; it is challenging to find good RS for vulgarisms due to the restraints of traditional sources; Wikipedia can do better than that.  Chzz  ►  03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is ridiculous and has no place in an encyclopedia. The idea that a "red cunt hair" is a unit of measurement is just wrong. Just because we like the joke doesn't mean we should play along by describing this as "a notional unit of infinitesimal measure" when we know it's not. It is nothing more than a figure of speech that doesn't measure anything, but describes things that are very small; the same goes for whatever the "hair" unit of measurement is supposed to be.

    So, we have a bunch of claims that there is more than a dictionary definition and well-referenced, both of which are very misguided. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, finding someone using the word in a sentence in a completely unrelated self-published memoir or book about friendship is not a proper reference. I can find all of the words in this sentence used in in books and quote them, but that doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Nor does a term's listing in dictionaries of slang establish a word's encyclopedic notability; all slang words can be expected to be found there. What do we have when we take away the etymology, definition, and quotations—all of which a dictionary does? Well, nothing, because we aren't actually talking about red cunt hairs here, or units of measurement, we are talking about an English-language phrase itself, as if it were an encyclopedic subject. I suppose nickel and dime is a "notional" unit of currency now, worth of an article?. Dominic·t 04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep basically per Chzz. While the phrase "cunt hair" is more popular in my part of the world, This type of terminology is a common meme, and the article is much more than a "definition". — Ched :  ?  06:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will no one actually explain how this is supposed to be "more than a definition"? Because it's a common turn of phrase that can be quoted in random sources? I assure you, there are a thousands more common. Dominic·t 13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as already exists on Wiktionary),despite thoroughly endorsing articles on matters other sources may omit. Hair generally (as a unit of measurement or in colloquial speech) may have a prospect for an encyclopedic article, but despite the previous AFD, this one is basically just a DICK DEF (sorry, I just had to!). I don't see much prospect of an article on this specific expression beyond typical dictionary material, such as 1) that it's slang for a very small amount, 2) the etymology of the expression, 3) some example sources of usage. This is exactly what we have, in terser style, in Wiktionary.

    If an editor can improve this article to say more on the term than a dictionary entry might, then keep, but at present and despite last AFD, the article doesn't seem to have good prospects of that. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a repetitious re-nomination; the prior AfD was just over a month ago. For an alleged "dictionary definition", this is impressively referenced: indeed, the predominance of reference over text suggests that the existence of the article has been excessively lawyered about, when all of that energy could have been spent in actually expanding the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing impressive about the references. The term exists in dictionaries and can be found used in literature. The same is true for all words. Dominic·t 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many DICDEFS can be referenced, impressively or otherwise. A word or expression being widely used just doesn't speak to whether the article can sustain more than definition, etymology and source usages/cites. Take a look at the Wiktionary article and see if there is anything of significance able to be said about the topic beyond what's likely to be salient in a dictionary. But merely being "a known and citable expression" does not (and never has) by itself qualify a phrase as an encyclopedia entry. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the page move is a good idea as it would alter the focus of the article; many hairs are used as approximate measurements worldwide and this one is no more notable than the others. However page moves are not an Afd issue, they are normal editing practice. This Afd should now be closed, and the editors have at it on the talk page. Completely agree with Mandsford about NOTDIC. pablohablo. 19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDIC: "Wikipedia Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." 'Red cunt hair' is a concept, not an actual unit of measurement. Dlabtot (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is unfortunately, incorrect and poor reasoning. because that definition covers non-notable history, dictionary definitions, and other content that Wikipedia is not equally. In other words, its not a helpful distinction. Some things of that kind are encyclopecic and some are not. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The reason for deleting it has nothing to do with obscenity, but I think, a case could be made, that much of the motivation to create this page, is because of it. This is clearly a trivia article, the so called concept,is just the usage of a a slang phrase. It has value in a dictionary, but not an encyclopedia. ... MistyWillows talk 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - incorrect. It would be an automatic endorse if I could see a reason it wasn't a WP:DICDEF. Instead of wondering what others motives are, which is an argument to generally avoid as it carries no weight, can you suggest a reason why it's more than a dictionary definition? (Simply being well sourced means nothing - dictionary entries are impeccably sourced too.) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as above, what exactly makes this meet WP:NOT? And "has excellent sorucing of the term's usage and meaning" isn't really an answer for that point. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for all the referencing that is in there, it still is a dictionary definition and references are dictionary entries or uses of the phrase and not sources about the sucbject. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete minor neologism or urban slang at best. No widespread notability established - and even if such was, it would still be for a slang dictionary, not for an encyclopedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one can argue notability (and I think it is clearly notable), "slang" terms like this fall under WP:NNN. So if it were notable and met those requirements (which I think it does), it does belong here. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being well referenced, by itself, does not make something encyclopedic. "Red cunt hair'" is still just an idiom, I could just as easily write a well referenced article for "In a pigs eye","Clusterfuck", or "Piss in the wind". Bottom line: WP:NOTDIC ... MistyWillows talk 09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll call your WP:NOTDIC policy and raise you with the WP:NNN guideline which is perhaps more on point. I think we define phrases in certain circumstances. If this is one of those that meet our standards should be the debate IMO, not "we don't do this kind of thing" because we clearly do and have guidelines that support doing so. Hobit (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That page is a red herring (and a bit odd to call someone's policy and raise them a guideline). That's not even a inclusion policy, it's about style, as the tag says at the top. Of course we define unfamiliar phrases when we use them in articles, and might even be forced to use a neologism as the title of an article where the neologism is the best name for an encyclopedic topic. But as Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we don't have articles that simply define and discuss a term itself (rather than any encyclopedic concept they name), whether they are neologisms or not. Dominic·t 22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(More to the point, WP:NNN also says exactly the same as the nomination: "Articles on neologisms: [...] Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are: [...] Wikipedia is not a dictionary".) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Thomas Academy, Worcestershire

edit
St Thomas Academy, Worcestershire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have a strong suspicion this is a hoax. I can't find any references to suggest it exists through google. The article claims it is in Worcestershire, yet also claims its 3.4 miles south of Oldbury. The closest Oldbury to Worcestershire is in the West Midlands, and 3.5 miles to the south is still in the West Midlands. Tried to find references to a Stanley Cup relating to cricket in Worcestershire... nothing. I can't believe for one minute that there would be no online mention for something like this if it existed. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOAX. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Angelo (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Remington

edit
Luke Remington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

15 year old soccer player who claims to be an international soccer player, but obviously not in a notable competition. Grahame (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this and this. The first directly addresses the question. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first link shows that the NNSW team was the Australian entrant to a tournament, it doesn't mean this player was actually selected to represent the actual Australian national team. The second link appears to show that he played for the national under-15 (not under-17) team, so I'll leave that out for people to decide if playing under-15 national football conveys notability. I've never seen an AfD in which it was decided that it did, and I personally don't think it does, so I'm sticking with my delete !vote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down. Near the bottom it says:"The full list of selected players and touring officials are as follows." followed by the team and officials including Remington. - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, however all that proves is that he was on the Northern New South Wales team (not even a state XI, just a sub-state XI) which took part in a tournament overseas, which is what I stated earlier. Nowhere does it say that he was chosen for the Australian national team. However, the second link you posted does show that he was chosen for the Australian national team, so it's a moot point. So the remaining issue is whether or not playing for your country at under-15 level conveys inherent notability. I firmly believe it doesn't, so I onec again stand by my delete !vote -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my earlier comment and explain how a hoax can have reliable sources pointing to it... - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinklecore

edit
Twinklecore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable neologism; Google pulls up nothing. Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMake Meister and OpenMake Mojo

edit
OpenMake Meister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
OpenMake Mojo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Software products. Not much detail as to what these products actually do and not much evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all of the above Non-notable per lack of substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of third-party reliable sources makes it impossible to write neutrally about these; I searched Google news archive but found only press releases. The OpenMake Meister article is filled with marketingspeak and can I think be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (I've tagged it for speedy deletion); the OpenMake Mojo one is shorter and less blatantly unobjective, and a G11 speedy has already been declined for it, but it's still not good enough to save. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baghdad Poker

edit
Baghdad Poker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product, fails WP:PRODUCT ttonyb1 (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Please do consider a rename. MBisanz talk 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time elapsed between first appointment and final departure from the role as Prime Minister

edit
Time elapsed between first appointment and final departure from the role as Prime Minister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Listcruft (perhaps better termed tablecruft?); neither encyclopedic nor notable. KurtRaschke (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Generations (game)

edit
Six Generations (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely the result of paid editing (see entry at the COI noticeboard.) Non-notable board game, of the references given - the only one that would possibly qualify as a reliable source (article on a website associated with the Toronto Globe and Mail) is actually a reprint of a press-release. Several of the other sources are reprints of the same press-release, and the remaining are customer reviews. Google turns up no further sources that would qualify under WP:N. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did find a few articles on the game (4 or 5), but at least 3 of them were pay-per-view and from the same source, so there aren't enough reliable sources talking about this game to make it notable. Timmeh! 02:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's a well-written article (heck, it should be if somebody paid for it) but in the end the game itself doesn't meet WP:N, as it hasn't been covered in any detail by reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Re the above reference to the Toronto Globe and Mail (Canada's largest daily): Of the thousands of press releases that newspaper receives each day, it saw fit to chose one written about this game for inclusion. Apparently, a board game celebrating immigration and ancestry is of considerably more importance to Canadian newspaper readers ... than to some others of us.ChulaOne (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Needs reliable sources and doesn't have any. The best one that the article's author can point to is a reprint of a press release. Really don't see any wiggle room here if no reliable sources are available. Drawn Some (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiforge

edit
Mobiforge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining db-spam deletion, taking to AfD. There are lots of ghits for mobiforge and dotmobi ... so many that it's very hard to find evidence of RSs, but I believe they're there. Promotional tone, but per article talk page, creator is willing to work with us. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I was told it was hard to find evidence of reliable sources for this site, so I did not look myself, and it looks like I should have. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. But if it's covered in Forbes, it would appear to be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the non-trivial hits in very notable publications here. The fact that something is of slight interest to the general public is not a reason to delete if it meets the criteria of our notability guidelines. The article's subject seems to have plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources so I see no reason not to follow WP:N in this case. No compelling reason to go against our normal standards. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'm seeing Google News but the links to Forbes are showing up as "not found" and all the other sources aren't as notable. Looking at Alexa's linkin section, those aren't exactly cutting edge sites. Mainly links from blogs, link farms and forums, though there are a couple of more interesting ones. I can see this going either way. Greggers (t • c) 16:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School Community System

edit
School Community System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an advertisement of a non notable product Anshuk (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tokyo

edit
Black Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article that's ostensibly about a website, though half of it is about the website's proprietor. They're much the same thing, really, as the website is a blog. A Japanese cellphone company had a stupid advertising campaign, which this blogger roundly condemned, and on which he was quoted in passing, and, er, that's about it. "[The proprietor's] blog posts have been mentioned on CNN, CNN Political Blog, France 24, The Guardian.[1], The Huffington Post,[2] The Japan Times[3] and others"; but yes, they've been mentioned, or even briefly quoted, but it seems never discussed. This article does indeed come complete with actual external links, but click them and peruse them and I think you'll agree that all of this adds up to extremely little, despite the good work of User:Blacktokyo and others. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a web directory and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS The Japan Times source adduced for the claim that the blog posts have been mentioned says no such thing. Instead, it's a humdrum letter to the paper by the blogger, and indeed a letter that doesn't mention the website or for that matter Blackness or life in Tokyo. -- Hoary (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This website has been mentioned by reputable sources, per WP:N. I see no reason to delete it. However, I do think the page needs some clean-up.Joel Lindley (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I've just had another look at WP:N, which tells us If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. / "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Addressing X directly in detail is not the same as mentioning X. Which sources address Black Tokyo in detail? -- Hoary (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:It satisfies WP:GNG for Reliable and Significant coverage sources, as well as WP:NTEMP.Joel Lindley (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:But WP:GNG is just another name for WP:N, which I'd brought up earlier. Yes, there are reliable sources among these. And yes, I'd say that the profile on the Japan Times website (a profile of which I hadn't been aware till HeiRenXuesheng brought it up below) is an increment toward significance. The site has one write-up in the website of a newspaper of some importance (and conceivably in the newspaper itself as well, though I haven't yet investigated this). Find one or two other such profiles, or discussion or detailed description of the site, and you'd persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The notable websites that have mentioned 'BlackTokyo' already has been listed by other users, and posted in the article. As the site--'BlackTokyo' seems to be managed by one person, it's obvious the site and the owner will be mentioned hand in hand.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, yes, Black Tokyo and its proprietor have indeed been mentioned on several websites. However, with the exception of the one profile for the Japan Times website, I'm not aware of any piece that does more than mention. WP:N asks for sources that address the subject directly in detail. Where are they? -- Hoary (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I recognise that the site is probably doing a good job, but I can't see it being particular notable. A quick Google search reveals various results but a lot of them aren't anything to do with this website. Plus, only 67 other websites link to this one. The sources mentioned in the article mention the website in passing, only as it seemed useful at the time. They don't really draw any attention to the site itself. Greggers (t • c) 11:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-The fact that The Guardian, Huffington Post, and The Japan Times [well known media outlets] mention BlackTokyo (and it's not just in passing, as they--The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Japan Times--are referencing statements from BlackTokyo's site and site owner) shows that those outlets see BlackTokyo a little more than just a regular site. Moreover, Japan Times actually did an article on the site March 29th, 2009.-HeiRenXuesheng (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) — HeiRenXuesheng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Comment: I'm willing to be persuaded, but let's get the facts straight. First, the the site and its owner are indeed featured in the lastmentioned of these, but that's actually this: Ricardo Bilton, "Black Tokyo", "Japan Times Blogroll", 25 March 2009. This seems to be the JT website rather than the newspaper. (Time permitting, I'll look in the newspaper later.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:That doesn't make any sense. That is like saying because a site (and its owner) were referenced in an online version of the San Jose Mercury or Los Angeles Times and you didn't physically see it in the hard copy, there isn't any nobility. They're both the same thing (offline and online); and, as aforementioned various times, have quite a lot of notability.-Joel Lindley (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er, no it isn't. HeiRenXuesheng said that the Japan Times "did an article on the site March 29th, 2009." I pointed out that this was four days earlier (not that this matters much) and that it was on the website rather than the newspaper. I might have added that since this was in a series titled "Blogroll", it's likely that it was made especially for the website. I allowed for the possibility that it was in the newspaper too. (I still haven't looked.) I didn't mention notability, and that was because I wasn't thinking of notability. I've conceded above that this is a step toward significant coverage, and have invited links to or details of more of the same. -- Hoary (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on the other two mentions. The Guardian article says: Zurui, in a message to the Black Tokyo site, wrote: [...] Writing on Japan Probe, James disagreed: "Is this [what] sites like Black Tokyo have written? I don't think so. [...]" The Huffpo piece says: One of the first outlets to key on the ad was the website and blog Black Tokyo, which is edited by Zurui, a Black American who has lived in Japan for many years plus a longish quotation from this. There's no further description of or comment on "Black Tokyo" in either. -- Hoary (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further: I've just noticed that the (unsourced) material about Robinson is lifted pretty directly from here. As the original isn't GFDL, strictly speaking this is a copyvio; but since the original is vaguely "Creative Commons", something could surely be worked out here. What's more worrisome is that half of an WP article that's ostensibly about a website is actually about its owner, and that the latter is based so directly on what he says about himself. -- Hoary (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All the references are in place, and as has been mentioned by other users, the references are notable. I don't see why Wikipedia has to change their standards now.-Yellow Coyote (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After HeiRenXuesheng (and an IP), another very new editor. Welcome. ¶ A relevant Wikipedia standard is WP:N. This talks of the need for "Significant coverage", [meaning] that sources address the subject directly in detail. Where are these "sources" [plural]? So far only one has been proffered, a profile within a series about blogs on the Japan Times website. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to keep on harping on the 'significant coverage.' There are a few guidelines (in addition to 'significant coverage') such as the aforementioned 'significant coverage'...'Reliable'...'Sources'...and 'Independent of the subject' which the article satisfies.-99.131.178.155 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has already voted futher up. Dalejenkins | 09:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know this was a continuation of the discussion above. My mistake. Still, I want to add WP:DEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE.--Joel Lindley (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:N and WP:GNG say that articles that rely on the existence of publications for their notability should discuss the subject in a non-trivial way and that more of such sources should exist. Since the Japan Times is the only publication independent from the blog to discuss it in any significant detail, it fails the notability guidelines. _ Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The press articles used as refs are about a racist Japanese phone ad, and only briefly quote the operator of the BlackTokyo blog. They are not significant or substantial enough to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow. Two weeks, and still on the Articles of Deletion page? I've seen pages that have questionable sources remain on the site after a week if they are nominated for deletion (the normal Wiki policy).--Joel Lindley (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Short close rationale: Doesn't meet GNG, probably won't, but there's good content here that can be and should be used. The nitty-gritty reasoning? Read on.

First, let's throw out the arguments which don't hold here: WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. The main arguments boiled down to whether this meets the notability guideline, and the whole original research bit. (A note before going on: I didn't consider the Chronology of the Harry Potter series in this close because while the arguments were based on similar elements, the two articles are quite different in composition and content; it's not fair to apply the same standards in this respect.) Does this article contain unverified claims and original research? Most definitely. But AfD, as noted below, is not cleanup, and primary sources have been provided that could be used to reliably source much of the article. Of course, when possible it's nice to rely on reliable secondary sources, some of which have been provided as well.

But that still leaves the question of whether the Chronology of Star Wars meets notability guidelines. There are references to the timeline, as demonstrated, but also shown none of these rise to the level of significance required by the general notability guideline. However I have nagging doubts about outright deletion in this respect. Editors below have shown there is content that does bear significance to the series as a whole. In the interests of preserving good content, I recommend a merge, either to Star Wars or to Star Wars universe (which could make good use of the out-of-universe discussions of canon found in the lead of the article in question.) However what, where, when to merge and such is a decision best made outside the purview of AfD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Star Wars

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chronology of Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series. An un-sourced, in-universe, non-noteable article. While Star Wars might be noteable, the timeline/chronology is not. This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. The articles fall foul of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:SYNTH, WP:SIZE and WP:FICT. Dalejenkins | 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the closer - As the nominator suggests, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Harry Potter series. As there has been much discussion covering similar topics on two separate AfD pages, in order to determine clear consensus, I ask that the closer take all the comments from both discussions into consideration of both closures. - jc37 17:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Star Wars stories appear in so many media, and have attracted so much attention, that this is almost necessary to allow readers to make sense of the disparate articles. The BBY fan notation is widely used. References like The New Essential Chronology give outside sourcing for it. --JJL (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The aforementioned book is a primary source - that's like saying that everybody who has a website should have a wikipage regardless of WP:BIO. Dalejenkins | 01:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It's a book written by third-party authors about what others have written and as such it's per definition a secondary source (as not being written by those who have created the material in question). The style used to do so (in-universe rather than outside view) does not change this fact. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a timeline of plot summary in licensed fictional Star Wars works. That's a licensed fictional Star Wars work. How is that independent of the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is independent because it was not written by the subject - persons such as Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker. Furthermore, it is not "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". The point of the guideline you cite is to show "strong evidence of interest by the world at large". The main chronology exists in numerous editions and so this constitutes such strong evidence. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was written by employees of Lucasfilm. It's not useful for commentary on the subject of the Star Wars timeline, because the only thoughts on the subject are going to be those who create and maintain that timeline. There's no hope of commentary from people other than people selling you that franchise, who naturally are interested in it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is common for reliable sources to be written by those who have an economic interest in the topic. For example, a mathematics textbook will typically be written by a person who has a vested interest in maths education/research. This is no bar to our usage of such sources. The guideline makes it clear that problems arise when people are writing about themself or it is overtly promotional like advertising. This is not the case here. The chronology of the Star Wars universe is of popular interest and it is naturally written by authors who have a specal expertise in the topic. If the work is official then it is authoritative and so much the better. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But a mathematics textbook will be covering concepts covered by many different texts, and not covering theories created by the mathematician or the publisher. Problems arise when we look to a Lucasfilm work for commentary on Lucasfilm's works. If the timeline is of popular interest, where's the commentary from authors who aren't in the employ of Lucasfilm? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of references to the Star Wars chronology out there, see for example. There's no IF about it - the claim that this topic is not notable is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler Garden on Google News, and yet Adolf Hitler's garden is still a redlink.
All of your Google News hits are mentioning this book briefly, or using the not-uncommon English word "chronology" or variations of same in an article about Star Wars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's law indicates that we are done. Thank you for playing. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just insanely amused by "Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was also noted for his contributions to gardening." Not sure if it was vandalism or a parody somewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A more careful examination with Google would lead you to this, which leads to this 1938 article describing Hitler's Berghof residence in great detail ("The gardens are laid out simply enough. Lawns at different levels are planted with flowering shrubs, as well as roses and other blooms in due season. The Führer, I may add, has a passion for cut flowers in his home, as well as for music."). There's also this ("Was it creepy to sleep in Hitler's garden, where Bormann and Goering literally strutted their stuff?"). Perhaps Hitler's garden is not quite as non-notable as you thought? Perhaps the results of Google searches should not be routinely dismissed simply because you are able to create search terms which turn up thousands of irrelevant hits? Is Taxi Driver not notable because this search turns up a bunch of articles about various cab drivers that have nothing to do with the film? DHowell (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I just need a better silly juxtaposition of words to show that the Google test doesn't necessarily mean you have a topic. (Plus, dude, major offhand references there.) Maybe Jesus break dancing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, just because you can come up with search terms for non-topics (although, perhaps this is relevant to the topic of "Jesus break dancing"?) does not mean that all Google searches are non-topics. Google test doesn't mean you necessarily have a topic, but it doesn't necessarily mean you don't. Actually looking at the search results and refining your search terms is how you properly use Google. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really great job of attacking the analogy while not addressing the point. A shotgun Google search full of junk has never established anything on its own. You're saying, "Well, maybe there are some good sources there!" I'm saying, "You'll need to point them out, because my digging got zero." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that I had seen no evidence that you did any digging at all, because my digging was actually turning up sources which I have pointed out; though now how I see you dismiss every source brought up I'm not sure more digging would be worth the effort, because I have no idea what kind of source you would accept to support this article. Perhaps if I knew what an AMIB-approved source that would support a fictional timeline would actually look like, I could refine my searching further. DHowell (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You digging has twice turned up articles that end with "Timeline taken from Star Wars Encyclopedia" and offer no commentary on the timeline at all. I offered a ton of questions that a good source might answer, or you could read WP:WAF which has been linked from this AFD at least a half-dozen times now. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You now appear to be misrepresenting the facts in order to further your argument: The LA Times article cites the following sources: "Star Wars Episode I: Incredible Cross Sections," www.starwars.com, "Star Wars Behind the Magic," "Star Wars Episode I: Visual Dictionary," "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace Movie Scrapbook," Lucasfilm Ltd., 20th Century Fox. None of them are the Star Wars Encyclopedia. The Lexington Herald-Leader offers the following commentary on the timeline: "This time line was compiled by fans, based on the movies, Lucasfilm-approved novels and comic books. There are still disputes about what is regarded as official text" and "There is controversy about the exact year Luke and Leia were born. The Star Wars Encyclopedia puts their birth at 18 BBY, but www.TheForce.net speculates 20 BBY." What newspapers decide to report and or "repeat from licensed fan-guides" is in itself a form of commentary, because they are deciding the information is "worthy of notice", i.e. notable. Finally, I have found some information about Lucas's role in the creation of the story chronology and how it is maintained by "continuity editors" in George Lucas: Interviews here. There are no doubt more sources to be find, but disimissing each one by one, without actually examining them, and reverting improvements to the article is not helpful, and strikes me as extreme bad faith. I'm not going to edit the article to improve it if you going to keep reverting me. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm working on converting it into a decent article. I'm removing a lot of the cruft, and once I remove what's uncitable i'm going to find citations for the rest of it. I've got primary sources, as well as the Star Wars Encyclopedia and several other books that count as third-party, so claims of WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYNTH will be moot. I acknowledge that as it is, the article is a flaming pile of shit, but i'm going to work on it. also, it is a nominee for WikiProject Star Wars Collaboration of the Month. Firestorm Talk 01:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You working on it doesn't make it anymore noteable though, does it. Where are these sources you speak of? Dalejenkins | 02:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority are in my living room. Some are in my bedroom, but I try not to have too many there, else it clutters up the room. Firestorm Talk 02:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what sources are they? Please describe and if they are books, can you tell us what they are and how their usage as citations will aid the article with real-life contextual support. There's no point having this article if it's just a re-creation of some sources - this is currently the case and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, whilst assuming WP:FAITH, I feel that WP:ILIKEIT is being applied in your argument. Dalejenkins | 08:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Star Wars Encyclopedia, several of the "Essential Guide to X" books, and a whole lot of primary sources (books, movies, etc). I acknowledge that the article as it is now is a steaming pile of shit, and the article after I finish with it will be about 1/10th the size it is now. Most of the events listed are not notable in any way, and I plan on restricting it to the select few that are. Firestorm Talk 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful way to organize information. Essentially a list. I doubt there will be difficulty sourcing almost everything to the canon, though I'm not sure how much does need to be included. But an entry in a table is not a full article, & does not need to be itself notable, or else every word in Wikipedia would need a full article attached. Some things are minor. . The only part that needs to be rescued from the charge of SYN is the calendar's arithmetic at the start. But perhaps it is standard, and I'm just ignorant. DGG (talk) 03:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is considered a standard. I know the official Star Wars Encyclopedia uses BBY/ABY for dates, and has something of a timeline as well. As for the rest of the information on length of standard days/years etc, I would have to look it up, as there may well be some valid SYNthesis concerns there. But the format for referring to years is generally accepted and (I think) official canon. Anythong I can't find a cite for and isn't notable will be getting thrown out. Firestorm Talk 04:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to show that it can provide real-world context on the subject in hand, otherwise it immediately fails WP:PLOT. Neither of you have addressed this in your arguments. Dalejenkins | 08:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT PLOT refers to coverage of a topic, not a specific article " The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary. " If our entire coverage of Stat Wars was limited to this article it would fail. But it isn't. This is essentially a navigation page to facilitate understand the material. The current wording is not really definitive--about 20 variations have been tried in the last few weeks. But the compromise consensus is that it applies to the coverage of works as a whole, not articles. There seems also to be consensus that extends even wider that the availability of references to a plot makes an article on it possible. (I dont really like that part myself, because references are a matter of chance for fiction), but i accept it as part of the compromise. Perhaps you disagree. Discuss it there, if you like, but I think the view will be speedily rejected as something we have already compromised on. I shouldn't have to explain the advantage of compromise of FICT related questions--we have no actual fundamental agreement, we won;t completely convince each other: we can either fight it out indefinitely instead of working on article, or we can compromise. Choose. DGG (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an in-universe navigation tool, when we already have lists that cover both in-universe and out-of-universe organizations, in a way that is overwhelmingly filled with in-universe factoids and not works. Some works (non-canon ones) aren't linked at all, whereas some are linked many, many times. This is the same problem as the now-deleted Buffyverse chronology. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A chronology of notable events, basically a list of them (as DGG says) is as notable as the events it lists. The article serves (or can serve!) for a overview of when the events in different notable media are taking place within the fictional chronology, thus allowing the reader an easier overview of those events. Citing an essay like WP:FICT as a deletion reason does not serve as a policy-based reason. OR, RS, V, SYNTH and SIZE issues can be fixed by editing and do not warrant deletion (as sources exist as pointed out above). Clearly does not violate WP:NOTWEBHOST (not used instead of a web host to store information). Per WP:BEFORE, the article can be improved, thus deleting is not the correct choice. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a chronology of notable events" - what? A bunch of fictional events in a science fiction series are not notable I'm afraid, unless it can be proved that there is significant, non-trivial, third-party coverage. Dalejenkins | 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Events like those that happen in the main Star Wars movies have been covered by countless sources, analyzing real-world connections and suchlike (see Palpatine#Character_creation for examples). That some are not that notable is not the concern of AFD but of cleanup. Regards SoWhy 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current form (or userfy); it is potentially notable, as I'm sure that at least one independent source has covered it. Find them, and recreate then :) Sceptre (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki - no sources exist that allow for an encyclopaedic article on this. I have some of the books I think this is copied from, I'll check and remove any copyvios I see. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshine. There is only one source from that list that comments on the chronology of Star Wars itself rather than on Star Wars as a whole, and this book has been previously discussed - it is not reliable as it is a primary source and, as the article only sources this one document, we are breaking copyvio. Dalejenkins | 22:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you have proof that the article is in violation of somebody's copyright? And if so, that there is some barrier that prevents you from simply removing the offended sections? Because if not, then its not a valid reason to delete. If it actually is copyvio, then after this closes i'm going to recreate it in a non-infringing way. Firestorm Talk 23:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The dating system is not made up; several official sources such as the Star Wars Encyclopedia use BBY/ABY for dates. Firestorm Talk 02:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- BBY seems to be the standard way to chronoligize Star Wars stuff[59]. Here's an LA Times article that has quite a bit of good info. Another source.[60] The article needs a lot work to avoid more AfDs, although it's pretty clear to me that a viable article can be made here. I recommend adding some out of universe info, like the years of films and whatnot. Also, should probably remove the redlinks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But what stuff are we organizing? We have BBY-organized lists of works: List of Star Wars books. This is a BBY-organized list of plotpoints, lacking context to attach them to any works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (smile) Sofixit, and add the primary sources : ) - jc37 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To what end? To make an in-universe version of a list we already have in out-of-universe form? If I were going to fix it, I'd make it into List of Star Wars books, but we already have that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That article covers books. This one covers important storylines from books, movies, comics, video games, G-canon and other canonical sources. Thescope is completely seaprate. Firestorm Talk 02:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's a list for each of those, as well. Organized in in-universe chronological fashion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, I'll bite... What articles are you suggesting that this page duplicates? (Not that I necessarily agree that partial duplication is a "bad thing".) - jc37 05:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It duplicates those lists as a navigation tool. It duplicates the many, many, many articles summarizing the plot of each of those films, books, games, comics, etc. as content. Arranging the same content infinitely in different ways is not good encyclopedia writing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, so you're saying that it collates primary source material, and groups the information in a different way, and that that isn't "good encyclopedic writing"? I might suggest that a geneological table of greek mythology might do the same thing. Yet I would suggest that such a table would be incredibly good for an encyclopedia, and indeed, presenting the information this way would help aid understanding, even though the same information may be presented in each related article. If chronologies weren't helpful, people wouldn't create them. And incidentally, The Lord of the Rings has a chronology at the end simply because so many of his readers requested it of him. (Yes, I can source it, but no, I really don't want to go find the book it's in.)
    Chronologies are encyclopedic, and exist in encyclopedias.
    So essentially, this isn't so much directly duplicative, but rather illustrative.
    I'm still not seeing the issue. I know you know I ask this with respect and deference: What's the problem besides IDONTLIKEIT? - jc37 08:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The genealogy of Greek myth (which would not be clear-cut) would be an appropriate encyclopedic topic because many, many reliable sources independent of the ancient Greeks have seen fit to comment on it. Likewise LOTR. Here, we have no such sources. This is closer to the Buffyverse and MGS timelines I noted above, which have been deleted exactly because nobody else has ever felt the need to comment in a reliable source about the chronology of that fictional world.
    I love Star Wars. Love it. I have been a Star Wars nerd for a very long time now. But this doesn't have multiple substantial reliable sources independent of the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I know you're a fan of Star Wars. That's not what I meant. I was being a bit more general than that. (PLOT, and such.)
    That said, your main concern is that no one has discussed the chronology of Star Wars? (Pardon my while I pick my jaw up off the floor.)
    Just off the top of my head, I can recall articles which discuss the chronologies (including the "original" ones which included Mace Windu and/or Anakin Starkiller). Discussion and comparisons to mythology, and Campbell's the Power of Myth.
    And that aside, there was quite a bit of discussion when the first prequel came out.
    (And I seem to recall discussions about where the Ewok films (or the Holiday Special) fall in the "chronology" of the series.)
    So, the chronology has been discussed.
    But all of that aside, why should it be required to be discussed? A chronology is merely a presentation of information. Why should we show bias as to what "form" the information is presented? WP:LIST would seem to suggest that such pages are allowable. And honestly, I'm still not seeing a reason why simple facts from a primary source cannot be collated for presentation in whatever way may best benefit the reader. And I highly doubt that you can assert that a chronology of in-universe information doesn't help a reader. Otherwise, such chronologies would never be published (supply and demand, and all that). - jc37 17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you are shocked that I might suggest that nobody has discussed the chronology of Star Wars means that you've lost perspective here. No sources other than self-publishing Star Wars fans and Lucasfilm have seen fit to comment. Since those aren't reliable sources independent of the subject, Wikipedia should also not comment. You're making a lot of "It's important to Star Wars fans!]] arguments here, but notability is not importance.
    Simple facts from primary sources are very different from collating every event that happens or is referred to or is implied in a licensed work, filtering out contradictions, retconning anything that doesn't fit, and incorporating the whole into a coherent timeline. There's a ton of C-canon stuff that has been shuffled and reshuffled and reshuffled, but none of that work shows here because there are no good sources documenting those retcons. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When exactly did George Lucas take over the Los Angeles Times, who has seen fit to discuss the chronology of Star Wars? Also, "licensed" does not equal "not independent". Is an "authorized biography" not allowable as a reliable source for an article on a person? For that matter, if an autobiography contains the vast majority of the information for a clearly notable person, are we not allowed to use that source? Can we not use Time as a source for information about Warner Bros., because they are owned by the same parent company? Furthermore, Any "retconning" that might exist in this article that isn't based on actual sources can be removed, and it would still leave a lot of decent information. Unresolvable contradictions should simply be described, rather than explained or filtered (if there is no source explaining the contradiction, and no blatantly obvious explanation or mistake), as we do in any other article where conflicting facts appear in reliable sources (List of High Kings of Ireland, for example). DHowell (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Read that article. It's an excerpt of the same licensed guides we're looking at here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An excerpt COVERED IN A RELIABLE SOURCE! What are you expecting, the L.A. Times editorial staff to travel to Corsucant to do independent research of the subject? We couldn't have any coverage of fictional topics under your requirements, because all information about fictional topics ultimately derives from the fictional works, or from their creators. We could have 10,000 independent reliable sources covering this subject, and you'd still say it's not notable. Sheesh. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the essential fallacy of in-universe thinking. No, I don't expect them to go to a fictional world to observe and report. I expect them to report on the Star Wars timeline in the real world. What process went into creating this timeline? How has it evolved? How has it been received by fans? How does the management of a timeline affect the franchise as a whole?
    You just linked a transcript of an infographic in the LA Times entertainment magazine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me, I thought we were talking about notability, now you are talking about real-world details? There are sources for that too, but of course you'll dismiss them because they are not independent. (Again, where would this information come from if not ultimately from the creators of the fictional works?) That's the fallacy of conflating WP:N with WP:NOT#PLOT; while notability requires independent coverage, and the plot policy requires real-world coverage, no policy or guideline requires "independent real-world coverage". To suggest so is to conduct an original synthesis of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in order to advance your position. And what does the format of the information have to do with anything? DHowell (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Excerpting a timeline from a Lucasfilm publication is not significant coverage.
    Significant coverage is commentary. I offered a number of questions a source that actually said something about this timeline might answer. Entertainment sections of newspapers excerpting Lucasfilm publications doesn't answer any of these questions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where in WP:N does it say that "Significant coverage is commentary"? Commentary is coverage, but not all coverage is commentary. Futhermore, if reliable sources aren't answering the questions you want answered, perhaps it means that your ideas on what this article should cover is not notable, not that the subject itself is not notable. As a tertiary source, we are "supposed" to be covering subjects in the manner of secondary reliable sources, and if all they do is excerpt primary sources, then there's no good reason why we shouldn't do the same, other than to satisfy your personal opinions about what Wikipedia shouldn't cover. Finally, there is no policy or guideline that says "entertainment sections" are any less reliable then any other section of the newspaper. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is going in circles. There's nothing you can say in this article that isn't taken directly from a Lucasfilm timeline or excerpts of same. If you think it's acceptable to just duplicate their timeline, considering nobody has ever said anything about the timeline, then you're just wrong. If you have a decent source that says something about the timeline, I'm all ears, because I think that the topic is interesting, but reprinting The Star Wars Essential Chronology is not an encyclopedia article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And can I just cherp in here and add that, as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, jc37 is more likely to be applying WP:ILIKEIT than we are WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just an observation ;), Dalejenkins | 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your observation, but I think it's a dismissable observation since I'm using arguments based upon policy and current practice (as opposed to statements like "fancruft" and a those who have a "bias" against anything plot-related - who, by the way, could probably do with a re-read of WP:NOT#PLOT, and for that matter the ongoing discussions there). - jc37 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Such a massive series, covering so many books, movies, animated series, merchandise, and having such a vast cultural influence, is notable enough to have side articles about its various aspects. The list helps organize all the series, and is thus quite helpful to those seeking information about it. Dream Focus 01:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep <<EC>> per many fine arguments above. DGG, Colonel Warden, et al. It really does not fail notability. Primary sources can be used when trustworthy for factual content, they are not required in this instance to establish notability. If there are problems with the article, they can be amenable to editing, and given the household name status of the subject of Star Wars, notability is beyond question. Real world significance is important, but we do not need to show the real world significance of the chronology per se, just of Star Wars as a whole. This article becomes an extension of what in a paper encyclopedia would be a huge article on Star Wars. It complements and expands on the subject, and I think this is an important example of giving the world free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That is, after all, what we are doing. Cheers, and happy editing. Dlohcierekim 01:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancrap listing of plot elements and events. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT at its clearest : ) - jc37 06:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you read past the first word. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above jc37, you are a member of the WikiProject for Star Wars, so it's more than likely that you are applying WP:ILIKEIT and holding a bias that others. Dalejenkins | 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's mentioned above, it doesn't need to be repeated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably, so for me at least, I'll just point to my response above. - jc37 17:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us join projects we have some doubts about to watch what's going on. I do. A good number of the eds. who oppose these articles are in fact fans of the subjects involved--it is not necessarily about not being interested in the fiction itself. DGG (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the content just fine, but it's thoroughly inappropriate for Wikipedia as it's a crufty mess of plot and in-universe details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ("Cruft" falls under IDONTLIKEIT, but that aside, it seems that WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC would seem to apply as well.)
    Anyway, the main problem with the argument is that it's an arbitrary, subjective opinion. At what point do we place the dividing line between what is "crufty fan-squee trivia", and encyclopedic material? And who makes that choice? I hope you're not suggesting that it's us performing WP:OR to make that determination... - jc37 17:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My interpretation is that the article fails at the minimum WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:TRIVIA, and WP:LISTCRUFT. I acknowledge that said interpretation is only my opinion, but what else could it possibly be? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What else indeed : ) - jc37 18:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    :o) Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Official Star Wars web site and a printed book using the Star Wars logo and name (= got the 'seal of approval' by George Lucas) are as good as a reliable source as it gets for this stuff. It's like using "God" as the source for the "Ten Commandments", including his address for verification. Okay, "god" in this case would be Mr. Lucas, which does not mean that he is a real god in a religious point of view sense, although hard core fans of the Star Wars universe would probably disagree with me on that one :). --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Ten Commandments and Bible have many sources cited, and not a one of them is the Almighty or His various prophets. Now let us never speak of this analogy again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the Ten Commandments article contains several citations to Exodus and Deuteronomy, considered by believers to be written by a somewhat important prophet. DHowell (talk)
  • Weak delete. Reluctantly convinced by some of A Man In Black's comments above that there probably isn't enough outside commentary on the chronology, though I fully admit that if this article wasn't such a mess I might've been inclined to argue usefulness to readers if nothing else. The fact that it's probably mostly a clumsy transwiki from wookieepedia:Timeline of galactic history doesn't help either. BryanG (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The chronology of the Star Wars series has been covered in clearly independent and reliable sources (such as the Los Angeles Times article cited above). Furthermore, books written by authors not involved in the creation of the original stories, and published by major publishing companies—even though licensed and authorized by the creators, developers, and publishers of the original works—ought to be considered independent for the purposes of notability and verifiability. Finally, compiling facts in ways that aid navigation for the reader is one of the main purposes of lists, and should in no way be considered original research unless it advances a contentious position. DHowell (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the article itself, though, it is a horrible mess, and I can see why some might want it gone. Before you even get to the timeline, it contradicts itself and the Coruscant article about the number of hours in a day, and makes some unsourced claims about the ordering of months in the year. And a large amount of information in the timeline doesn't even cite a fictional source which would allow anyone to verify. But this is a notable topic, and the article needs major cleanup, not deletion. DHowell (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Really. What factual claims are you going to get from this? An excerpt of a licensed guide isn't coverage. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'd say you have a very different definition of "coverage" than the rest of the speakers of the English language. The factual claims I'm getting from this are factual claims about when certain fictional events took place within a fictional timeline. These are facts about fiction, independently sourced, and as such are things we ought to be including in a paperless encyclopedia. I've already used this source to add citations to a few of these events (if I have time I'll add more), and it has led me to further sources and information about the subject. The fact that you are somehow unable to derive any useful information from these sources should not prevent the rest of us from doing so. DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You linked to a transcript of an infographic from the entertainment magazine insert of a newspaper. You can shout LA TIMES! to the rooftops but it's just repeating some press material from Lucasfilm. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You can shout "infographic" and "entertainment magazine insert" to the rooftops but it doesn't make the newspaper any less reliable. And page "F-4" is from the actual entertainment section, not a so-called "magazine insert". DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not terribly concerned with convincing you, but anyone who'd care to look will see that it's clear that it's a transcript of a graphical excerpt of a Lucasfilm publication. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The policy that I feel most strongly addresses this subject is WP:NOT#PLOT. There also seems to be a great deal of WP:OR and it's dangerously close to a copyvio. OlYellerTalktome 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    how can something fail both OR and copyvio? And whatever its merits, it does not fail NOT PLOT. I quote "The coverage of a fictional work should not be a mere plot summary." "The coverage" is the wording, not "every article about it" DGG (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By repeating an original theory only advanced by its self-publisher. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious synthesis and original research from primary sources. We don't do these here. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update My research has now turned up this, which in turn cites another newspaper source, the Lexington Herald Leader; the original article can be found here. This topic now clearly passes the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject" threshhold. I've cited both the LA Times and this source in the article for "key dates". DHowell (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those links offer any commentary or content. They just offer two (mostly conflicting) timelines, both cited to whatever the latest Lucasfilm-licensed fan guide was. "Here's two timelines in the entertainment sections of newspapers, now let's give 100K of plot summary that doesn't resemble those references at all" isn't good referencing. What content other than "So-and-so did this in such-and-such year" do you plan to put in this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are reverting information from independent reliable sources, because they conflict with other primary sources, sources you claim are unsuitable to use in this article, and don't "comment" on the sources? Except in their editorial section, newspapers aren't supposed to "comment", they are supposed to report. And they report information from primary sources. That is what newspapers do. DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Content has little to no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Synthesis from primary sources. Indiscriminate inclusion of trivial events, people, places, etc. The wealth of redlinks (discounting dates) indicates that much this context-less amalgamation of plot detail and trivia is better suited to Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a copyvio. We are quite clearly in breach of WP:NFC. Specifically:
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3.
  1. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
  2. Minimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
It doesn't get much simpler than that. Hiding T 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: First, I'm not sure how that applies here. (I can only guess atm.) Would you explain? And also, I'm sure I missed it somewhere, but would you please link to the copy in File namespace?
I strongly support Chronologies (for the various reasons noted above). However, if we're in violation of NFC, I'll likely switch to delete on those grounds. - jc37 20:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cut and paste as properly as I'd like. The first mistakle a lot of people make is in assuming that non-free applies only to images. It actually applies to all non-free content. A plot is non-free content. That's how it applies. We're basically infringing upon the commercial opportunities a copyright holder has in exploiting their work to produce such a chronology and sell it. We're giving it away for free, basically. Now, we can use non-free content minimally, so we can use points within the chronology in relevant articles, but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage. So you can say in an article on the character Harry Potter that he got a scar on his head at this point, that's minimal usage. The minimal extent is only to use as much of the plot as is needed to illustrate or facilitate understanding for a reader. And finally, non-free content must be encyclopedic and meet content standards. So it needs to be in keeping with the manual of style, and with Wikipedia:Non-free content, which notes that it is illegal (among other things) to reproduce or make derivative works of copyrighted works without legal justification. The key point here is derivative works, which are defined as being an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work. The only legal justification we have for making derivitaive works is that of fair use, but that involves demonstrating transformation. We fail here somewhat because what we have created isn't new. Now it can be argued that WIkipedia might possibly get away with publishing this stuff, but that's not the point. The point is that we have commercial reusers, so it isn't enough that we can get away with it. On Wikipedia, our goal is to be a free content encyclopedia, with free content defined as any content granting the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially. So that's the basis for my thinking. Hiding T 22:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem on the paste (especially since we're both responding in two separate discussions).
The key sentence seems to be: "...but groupoing it together in one article to show the timeline is not minimal usage." - Are we certain that this is the case? I mean no slight whatsoever, but rather want to get to the heart of this. Because what you're saying would then seem to apply to geneological tables (family trees) as well as quite a few other lists. So it sounds like we really need to know if this is legally accurate (and since IANAL, and sincerely don't know, but would like to find out). So, next stop User talk:Mike Godwin? - jc37 02:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what sense would it be like a family tree? You can't copyright a family tree, since it is material within the public domain. Showing the timeline is not minimal usage to my mind, because the point of the article is to show the timeline, not to discuss the impact of the work. Our whole usage of copyright material rests upon a fair use defense, which means we have to offer critical commentary and use copyrighted material when it is vital to the points being discussed. But yes, this has applied to lists in the past, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists. Also see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4. I don't think this article is at all workable, I think given this chronology has been published a couple of times we're basically infringing copyright by reproducing it here. Hiding T 13:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stricken, not so sure of my ground now, actually. I've left a few remarks, but given points made at WT:NOT, I've made a u-turn. I think it probably is a matter for teh foundation. I reckon we should probably just avoid copyright paranoia and let the board take the lead on this issue. They'll be able to source better opinions than mine. Hiding T 13:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been asked to expand on this, so I will. First point is that WP:NFCC specifically states it applies only to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files", so it does not extend to text as I mistakenly assert above. The second point is that the level to which copyright law covers specific um, "fictional facts", is unclear. Plot itself is not subject to copyright, but creative expression is. Basically, the only place that will ever determine whether we breach copyright or not is a court of law, and ultimately it is therefore a call for the board to make rather than for me to make. The board reserve the right to take down any material which they do not believe would be defended in court using fair use defense criteria, so I think they have to take the lead on on summarising and infringing fictional works which are subject to copyright. I retract my assertions as flawed and perhaps subject to copyright paranoia. Hiding T 15:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on OR and expansion of my rationale for keep. NO OR exists to keep people from publishing their theses here in the guise of an article. This not the case here. The creators do not compile and synthesize information to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly in the sources. They do not cite themselves. This is not OR, the use of primary sources does not make it such. "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, we are building a storehouse off all human knowledge. Dlohcierekim 14:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article written based one one single primary source, with lots of conjecture based on other primary sources (and some random comments in secondary sources that are chiefly about other things). It's two different kinds of OR (Lucasfilm's own theory of how their work fits together, and lots of fans' little theories), but both are inappropriate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. "I don't like it" is nota reason to delete an article! Yes, the article is shoddy; yes, it lacks WP:RS and, yes, it is overly detailed and immersed in the lightsaber wielding world of The Force. However, the cultural significance of this iconic series makes it notable! everyone has heard of star wars- whether they like it or not. After all, 390,127 people declared themselves "Jedi" in the British 2001 census. The article could be a perfectly valid encyclopaedic entry if some of the more intricate detail were removed and the majority of the events on the list were links to existing articles or those of significance in the series. HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have those lists, though. We have lists of Star Wars works by inuniverse chronology. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • but do we have an article listing every significant event of the series in chronological order? That's what this is and, if refined, could simply be a timeline and a collection of links to the most important events in the Star Wars. HJ Mitchell (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is it proper for an editor to revert, and revert again, improvements to the article using independent reliable source citations, in an article which that editor is arguing to delete? DHowell (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He appears to have explained his reverts well enough in the edit summaries. I think it's improper for you to use such sources as well. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and because it seems to wildly surpase any and all sourcing guidelines. Yes, the best material is going to come from secondary sources that aren't independent, but there are plenty of books, articles and reviews to build something like this without those non-independent sources if needed. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean it up. Every entry is going to need citing to the primary source itself. Conflicts within the timeline have to be shown, and only explained by citing reliable secondary sourcing. Hiding T 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What reliable secondary sources would those be? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall saying there were any. If I'm honest, I think this is a copyright violation. But since I am not a judge, I can't rule that, and it is only a judge who can, not a lawyer or anyone else. If I were to back my judgemenbt, I'd say delete, per my extensive arguing up above, but as people have pointed out, that's not supported by policy or guidance or consensus. It's just supported by my personal morality on what's right. I think this article violates a number of fundamental points about what we're supposed to do here, from breaching copyright to breaching original research to breaching neutral point of view and breaching ideas we had against being used for marketing purposes. However, all the information is verifiable, it is of use to readers and it isn't false. There's no consensus here that this article or articles like it are a bad thing. So the article must, if kept, be edited in line with our policies. Which means every entry needs a cite, and every conflict within the timeline is listed, and only explained if a reliable secondary source can be cited. If there are none, we don't explain the conflicts. I donl;t believe there are secondary sources, but I'm prepared to be wrong. Do you think there's a consensus to delete? I don't, I don;t think there is even if you fall back on policy, because you'd be relying on the most contentious parts of policy, and overlooking WP:CONSENSUS. I'm beginning to think the only way forward is to let these articles grow and grow until someone files suit. Then we'll get a consensus. Hiding T 11:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And to go further, attempts to erase conflicts are POV pushing and original research. If one source states a and a later source states b, because both these facts are fictional, b cannot be discarded in favor of a. We have to present them both and state, descriptively per WP:V as these are primary source, that the two sources conflict. We don't get to streamline the chronology, we don't get to decide one source is "truer" than another, we don't get to take a point of view. Since this article is built on primary source, it must only make uncontentious descriptions. Anyone contending that describing the fact that primary source 1 conflicts with primary source 2 is original research misunderstands what a description is. But like I say, I think this should be deleted for relying mainly on primary source. There's no two ways about that. All the sources are fiction, and are therefore primary source. Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology even notes in its introduction that it is a work of fiction. But I'm quite prepared to play long term. I am reasonably sure that in 100 years time this article will not generate as much controversy, and maybe, it would have been quietly prodded at some point between then and now. Hiding T 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it's a copyvio, frankly, then George Lucas or the applicable authour should come up with some proof. If it's blatant, then I'd agree with Hiding, but, to date, nobody has come up with a book or URL from which this material has supposedly been copied. I stand by my position that, with a little tidying up and some research as to the contradictions, this would be a perfectly good article and an authoritative source for researching the subject. HJ Mitchell (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be amazed to see this article become a perfectly good article and an authorative source and remain within the law. I'm also intrigued by the idea that an article on Wikipedia should be an authoratoive source. Out of curiousity, what do you understand by the terms "derivative work" and "ability to exploit"? Hiding T 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially a modified, extended plot summary, almost entirely composed of either original research or material lifted straight from primary sources. I don't believe this topic has the real-world notability required to justify an article in its own right. Robofish (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There's a distinction between a plot summary and a chronology, albeit a blurry one, and this is the latter. Rather than explaining every event ever to happen in Star Wars (it'd be 10 times the size if it did), it summarises some of the most important events and links to their respective articles. It could be a decent navigation and reference source. It just needs consolidating and cleaning up. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, there is no distinction. You are summarising fiction. In this instance the fictional work being summarised is Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology, and the plot of the work centres on events within a galaxy over a timeframe. If you just want a navigation aid, use a template. if you want to be an encyclopedic reference source, go summarise secondary sources, oh wait, we don't have any, do we? Hiding T 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're not going to find any great quantity of WP:RS but that's not the point. There is sufficient coverage in quasi- independent sources of the core in many publications, in my opinion, to warrant it's inclusion. A lot of the rest of it is interesting and chronologises (try pronouncing that- if it's even a word!) material documented elsewhere on wikipedia. Granted, what's left after that is little more than utter tosh that no1 is seriously going to be looking up and seriously overcomplicates the article and should be removed, but the article itself should stay. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We haven't even got quasi-independent sources. All we've got are works of fiction, which are primary sources and somewhat questionable. That's what the debate is about. Hiding T 08:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article gives useful information that helps one undertsand terminology used in other Wikipedia articles, mostly about Stars Wars. Sf46 (talk) 06:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Frenemy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

neologism, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, no indication that it would ever be more than this. Currently article is essentially a long dictionary definition with an unreferenced list of mentions in pop culture. RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a "mainstream" neologism, the aren't many reliable sources in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many RSs does a typical mainstream neologism have? MyDog22 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commentnotable subjects have "significant coverage" of the subject in 3rd party sources. The references in the article mention the word but are focused on something else. These references do provide some evidence of it's use but only the CNN link below is focused on the word itself. WP:N doesn't put a number on "significant" but I'm sure it's > 1. The references proove the word exists and is used but not that its notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty more reliable sources which describe and utilize the term. Take, for example, this article from CNN.com. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, keep. MyDog22 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sushil Kumar

edit
Dr Sushil Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though Sushil Kumar may be one of the current directors of Indian Council of Historical Research, no understandable sources can be found that testify to his importance. The Hindu provides a mention one of his comments, printed 9 years ago. The inline citations don't seem to mention him personally. There are no complete references to any of his books. There are not enough sources provided here from which a proper article can be written. EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete.

I have been monitoring all the versions of this Article right from its entry level . My views are :

The Article has following strengths and may please be not deleted.

1. It is the piece on a soldier who has made it to being the Chief of the World Renowned Indian Council of Historical Research ( any other instance?)

2. It is an article that need to be there in the portals of Wiki to demonstrate to the readers as to how when some one's name is misused and it continues to stick even if the subject cries hoarse that he did not make such and such statement.

3. It is a demonstrative article , depicting the Whistle Blower who for some corn in his head or bee in his bonnet , shows how to continue to report against any one who indulges in to defalcations of Public Funds, despite personal deprivations. Dr Kumar was chosen for consideration of an award for his fight against corruption (Let me recall the name of the Internatioanl agency and I will put it here) the article needs to be retained being didactic.

4. It is a piece on the Village Lad who serves in the Services (What services ? its not clear) and still has the time to study from Unversities of India like JNU, Madras and GNDU (where is Guru Nanak Dev University?)

5. If Wikipedia is for all , if Wiki caters to all the readers and wants the literate denizens to know about the kinds of Kumar then this Article needs to be retained.

Weaknesses

1. The piece got slowly filled up , bit by bit. The contributor either does not have full knowledge on Kumar or is chary to come out with all details in one go.

2. The contribtor does not know how to provide references.

3. The article is a painting that needs the brush strokes of the experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topeditorials (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC) — Topeditorials (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Asia relations

edit
(View AfD)
India–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Removed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Malta–Kazakhstan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malaysia–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–South Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Thailand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Vietnam relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Again, a bunch of stubs about the foreign relations of some tiny country in the Mediterranean. (If you find any that should be kept, please point them out.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no, the articles each deal with different subjects. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all remaining nominees as non-notable bilateral relations with no sources given to show otherwise. (I question whether an article can be written on the India matter: the "Government of India" in 1878 was these guys (not in charge of an independent state) and the remaining stories are basically just news - but that's a matter for another day.) - Biruitorul Talk 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is like saying we will have only major wars, not minor ones. I wonder what can be found for the others. Malta was a crossroads for centuries. The existence of that material is ful demonstration of the folly of group nomination without searchg foer sources oneself. It's all too easy to assume that "what I don't know isn't knowledge" , like the Master of Balliol.DGG (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Malta was a crossroads, but isn't (for instance) a Malta-Israel relations article covering the Crusades a bit anachronistic? It's like having a Spain-Bahamas article mention Columbus. Modern Malta has only been independent since 1964. - Biruitorul Talk 05:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all remaining nominated pages. The relations between the countries in question aren't notable enough to justify having pages. fuzzy510 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all currently listed articles as there are no indications of notability Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malta-South Korea I think that the link to the Vietnam Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Malta-Vietnam article says it all: Malta -- There are currently no news here. There is some evidence of relations in the source from the Malta-South Korea article ROK website, which indicates over half a billion dollars worth of exports from Korea to a nation with a GDP of about ten billion. Based strictly on what's in the article, Malta-South Korea ranks ahead of Malta – United States relations in terms of justifying its continued existence. As for the rest, I'd add that anyone wanting to check on where Malta has an embassy can refer to the excellent Foreign relations of Malta artilce, which has room not only for most of this information, but also for the pretty flags that are a staple. Mandsford (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- including Malta-India. While the British Raj may have invaded malta in the 19th century, that has nothing to do with the modern state of india (it was a british action, a moving of troops from one place to another to deal with british interests -- not to be pedantic, but i guess some aren't aware the india was a brit possession until well into the 20th century... Ghandi anyone?). There are simply no notable bilateral relationships for Malta beyond some of its north african and european neighbors. How could there be (no reliable sources establish any of these relationships as an encyclopedic topic).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all remaining as non-notable. Nothing to this, really. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As failing notability and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Malta-Asia relations and delete. Obviously there is no need to cover Maltese relations with the rest of the world before 1964, so Malta-India should go too. MyDog22 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (indef blocked as sock of a blocked user).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete by Orangemike Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid codes

edit
Metroid codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:NOTMANUAL: " Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Middle East relations

edit
(View AfD)
Bahrain–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iran–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Israel–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lebanon–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Oman relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Syria relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–United Arab Emirates relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Again, a bunch of stubs about the foreign relations of some tiny country in the Mediterranean. (If you find any that should be kept, please point them out.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to delist the Israel-Malta article, as per the two countries' 2005 bilateral agreement relating to health and medicine [63] and this 2007 interview in MaltaMedia with the Israeli ambassador [64]. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Americas relations

edit
(View AfD)
Argentina–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colombia–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Peru relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Again, a bunch of stubs about the foreign relations of some tiny country in the Mediterranean. (If you find any that should be kept, please point them out.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta-Africa relations

edit
(View AfD)
Algeria–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Egypt–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Removed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kenya–Malta relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Morocco relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Malta–Tunisia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Removed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a bunch of stubs about the foreign relations of some tiny country in the Mediterranean. (If you find any that should be kept, please point them out.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might if some other editors weren't bound and determined to have it that bilateral relations articles were inherently notable, even as stubs. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Malta-Africa relations, merge the rest into it, and then delete them. MyDog22 (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) (if it wasn't obvious, this was a sock, now indef-blocked).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/esearch/searchResult.jsp?configType=BBCOM_SIMPLEDEFAULT&pubList=Billboard&an=bbcom&action=Submit&kw=&exposeNavigation=true&keyword=Colorado+Kool-Aid&submit.x=31&submit.y=20&submit=Submit&searchType=ARTICLE_SEARCH
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_15&oldid=1142646107"