Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 December 25
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The article was deleted by prod. Non-admin close. RogueNinjatalk 09:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum waveform generator
- Quantum waveform generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
In-universe article about a -non-notable piece of sci-fi weaponry. Ridernyc (talk) 06:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as great as the games may be, delete per nom RogueNinjatalk 09:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chevrons (UK band)
- The Chevrons (UK band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Complete lack of notability, no updates since tagged for notability in Aug07
- Keep - Its a stub. Articles don't have to grow to be kept. It is not an advertisement, and it is encyclopedically written. There is no reason to delete this page. Fresheneesz (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is nothing in the article that demonstrates that this group passes ]
- Delete. Couldn't find much from a Google search. The 3 CDs appear to be self-released, and their current tour appears to be limited to pub venues in the London area. Without some significant independent coverage, I don't think we can keep this. If some demonstration of passing WP:MUSIC could be added, I would be happy to reconsider.--Michig (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nor could I. No evidence that this passes RGTraynor 10:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWeak Keep: The band seems to be quite notable. They do have a website of their own. It just requires more references and citations - 06:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Just out of curiosity, what elements of RGTraynor 09:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just out of curiosity, what elements of
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You (Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006)
- )
I don't believe the recognition of "You" as Time's 2006 Person of the Year is worthy of its own article. I understand there is no relevant person article, but my point still stands. -- tariqabjotu 22:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The existence of a category called Time magazine Persons of the Year demonstrates that the magazine's choices for it's "man" or "person" of the year are considered notable. The article about "You" as the person of the year includes the criticism of that particular editorial decision. Needless to say, I can't take offense because it wasn't about "Me". Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My issue is not with the notability of Time's Person of the Year feature. I believe, for example, that the naming of a subject as Time's Person/Man/Object of the Year ought to be noted in each subjects' article. This question is over whether this should have its own article or whether the 2006 recognition should simply be noted in some other article (like Web 2.0). -- tariqabjotu 00:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's actually one of those that will likely be remembered for a long time, like the time they named the PC. In this form, of course, no (two blogs?). But There was plenty of coverage of the incident including a bevy of critical commentary. --Dhartung | Talk 23:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe that it is worthy, both in isolation, and as part of the series of annual articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per everyone, but that's a weaker keep than everyone else. WP:NOT#NEWS is one thing to bear in mind, although it doesn't apply here in the same way as it does in many other cases.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge into the short talk) 02:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: IMHO it was a stupid and infamous choice, but due to the prominence of the award it deserves its own article. It should not be merged with "You" or "Person of the Year", as it would dilute the importance of these two significant articles. Kransky (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs more sources, but the topic is notable - I guess that it could be argued that if Time ever picked a previously non-notable person as their person of the year that person would become notable so this article seems reasonable. --talk) 11:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Come on, *I* was nominated as person of the year! If that is not notable, I don't know what is... Seriously, this was a well-documented event, and rises above daily news. It will be better remembered than many other persons of the year. Famous or infamous, it was newsworthy and is noteworthy. --Aleph-4 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nom hasn't provided any deletion rationale other than "not worthy" and no one has in this AfD either. This is the kind of subject that, if properly written, could end up as a main page feature article. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is notable (as it is a departure from a well known publication's practices) and since the other Time Magazine "People of the Year" have articles this one should as well (my opinion is that if it is a Time Magazine "Person of the Year" then that 'person' is automatically notable). Further, since it does not seem to fit into the context of You than I believe it should have its own article. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, like all other persons of the year, this choice was covered by many other media. --talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, I doubt this warrants an article by itself, however, I believe it would be better as section of the Person of the Year page. It is not too long to be an individual section, and (as other Person of the Year choices do not recieve articles of their own) it should not recieve an article of it's own. Additionally, the media attention it recieved is more of a news event. Polarbear97 (talk) 01:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As valid as the other 'People of the Year', as the choice was widely covered by print media as part of the Web 2.0 revolution. ><]
- Keep. As per everyone else. Also this article has complete merit and as such should be allowed a page. Thanks, H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable topic. — 229 22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is notable. --Avala (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is clearly a notable article. Dunfermline Scholar (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by
Tara hinds
Non-notable choir director. Claims of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless it can be explained why these awards are significant.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No context in the article, much less evidence of notability. --Orlady (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, practically the first word is "accomplished" but as I frequently point out accomplishment is not notability, otherwise we'd be a directory of everyone who does their job well enough to not get fired. Also, "friends with renowned X Joe Blow" is one of those telltales of desperation. Fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment After googling "Alexander Huseman", I deleted the sentence "Tara is great friends with world renound airport builder, scientist, muscian, musical artist, and athlete Alexander Huseman.". Call me bold... Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete googling "Tara hinds" "mount carmel" generates one lone blog hit. I'm not convinced this isn't a hoax, and I'd hate to have to falsify Geogre's_Law. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails ]
- Delete. If people hesitate whether this may be a hoax, then this clearly does not concern a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusio (talk • contribs) 10:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedcsp |username}}. |
- )
This page is not an encyclopaedia article, it is a list of statistics. In the past it has been shown that there is a
Note - I am aware that until recently this article was mentioned in the
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
- Opinion polling by state for the United States presidential election, 2008
- Graphical representations of two-way-contest opinion polling data from the United States presidential election, 2008
- Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates
- Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) 2008 presidential candidates
- Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008
- Opinion polling for the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008]
Guest9999 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply
- Comment. I found it confusing that the nominator had linked all of the listed pages to come to this location. Some people may be responding to the AFD for a particular page. I queried the nominator, all seven are under discussion. See: the conversation at my talk page.
You may wish to specify the particular article you're responding to.
Yellowdesk (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Multiple article listing per AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion.." On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:"
- {{subst:afd1|PageName}} .."Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name...--Hu12 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki if an appropriate target exists (perhaps Wikinews could make some use of it, even if not in that form, or an appropriate Wikibook exists?), else delete. The information might be useful and appropriate somewhere, but simple lists of statistics are not encyclopedia articles. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You argue that there's a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. How about linking to that policy, or previous discussions to support this claim? I would agree that there are many, many instances where information could be better presented as prose rather than a list, and in those cases lists should be discouraged. But lists are an effective means of conveying information, and definitely have an important role in any encyclopedia. Opinion polling is, though certainly imperfect, perhaps the only objective means of measuring candidates' performance in an election campaign. Properly sourced lists of polling results are an appropriate means of documenting the election. I would support the transwiki proposal, but I feel that an encyclopedia is the appropriate place for this information.]
- Comment. The nominator did not say that in the past the consensus had been that lists (in general) should not be included, but that such [long and sprawling] lists of statistics should not be included. You asked for linking to that policy? Well, the nominator did. In case you missed it, here it is again: ]
- Reply As mentioned above (thank you) I did not say that there was a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case (see WP:NOT#STATS. I do not agree that a list of poll results is an effective way of communicating information, I feel that an article based on commentry of analysis of the polls and trends shown by the polls would be far more informative than a long list of numbers. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Reply ]
- Reply As mentioned above (thank you) I did not say that there was a consensus that lists should not be included in Wikipedia. This is clearly not the case (see
- Comment. The nominator did not say that in the past the consensus had been that lists (in general) should not be included, but that such [long and sprawling] lists of statistics should not be included. You asked for linking to that policy? Well, the nominator did. In case you missed it, here it is again: ]
- Delete. The Manhattan telephone directory is more useful than this. --Lambiam 21:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is 150% untrue, and not funny at all. I wouldn't count your vote for beans, cause your vote has no real reason attached. Fresheneesz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is, of course, that these articles violate WP:NOT#STATS. I agree that that is not funny. It was not meant to be. With the Manhattan directory, I can look up the phone number of a friend on the Lower East Side, which is imaginable I might want to do. To me it is unimaginable that I might want to look up how Hillary Clinton did against Mitt Romney in the last Newsweek Poll of June 2007. People who can do something meaningful with such raw data, such as political scientists, wouldn't collect the data from an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Lambiam 01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is, of course, that these articles violate
- That is 150% untrue, and not funny at all. I wouldn't count your vote for beans, cause your vote has no real reason attached. Fresheneesz (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, articles related to US presidents are exempted from such policies. See e.g. Category:Lists relating to the United States presidency. --Vsion (talk) 21:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Any reasoning behind this? The fact that enough lists exist to form a category does not mean that any list on a topic is exempt from policy. Would List of the lengths of U.S. Presidents' big toes be an acceptable article? [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Keep I would say, wait until the primaries are over and then clean up (or delete) this page.few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Just wondering, why have you linked to the talk page of an unregistered user account? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- My mistake.few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I wonder why this would deny my opinion on this topic. I'm a frequent reader of these pages and I have posted on other wikipedia pages in other languages but by using other accounts.
- My mistake.
- Just wondering, why have you linked to the talk page of an unregistered user account? [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Delete. It is not fisto 23:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Difficult to use. Dificult to read. Not a list, but several lists without explanation. Not an article. An article could describe other web pages that consolidate this information. Basically a list of links. The topic has a potential as a history of polling for this election, but not in this form. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These articles present reliably sourced information, in a more straightforward way than could be accomplished with prose. The content is clearly notable, factual, and meaningful to a broad readership, so assertions that it is "unencyclopedic" require further explanation. All that is needed to satisfy ]
- Strong Keep It is encyclopedic! It is very informative and gives a clear meaning to the opinion polls. And isn't an encyclopedia suppose to be as informative as possible - without Opinion Polls for a subject like the 08 elections - it would be a rubbish article. Samaster1991 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The information is reasonably organized and seems sourced. A very many editors have been interested in and have edited the page. Even thinking about deleting it seems rather ridiculous to me. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vsion. ViperSnake151 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, these pages are useful and that is all that matters. I think some editors are interpreting wikirules too strictly, this is a classic case of TX 02:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A ]
- Strong Keep, per Samaster1991. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, desat 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per Wikipedia:NOT#REPOSITORY. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Agree strongly with Coredesat's reasoning towards keep arguments. --Hu12 (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, I actually found this article to be very useful for someone who is interested in these statistics. They are encyclopedic because it is historical information about the opinion of presidential primary contenders for the 2008 elections. I didn't create this article, but I would like to see it stay. Additionally, there are few other sites that have organized these polls in such a way. I find this information particularly under "other polls" to be very interesting. If you don't find this to be the case, then don't read it. Wikipedia is all about the dissemination of information, and this is valuable and interesting information. And P.S. this is not a simple list. This information would take forever to gather from 50 different places, which (at least) makes it a complex list. Just my two cents. --few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep, few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- How is one sentence that basicly says the "this is a list of..." sufficient context for in some cases, around 50 lists of polls? [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- How is it insufficient, if it explains exactly what is to follow? Is there some ratio of prose characters to tabular characters that indicates insufficient context? — ]
- How is one sentence that basicly says the "this is a list of..." sufficient context for in some cases, around 50 lists of polls? [[Guest9999 (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Keep this is encyclopedic information from reliable and verifiable sources. WP:NOT#INFO can always be counted on as an excuse for deletion, and we are not left wanting here. Unfortunately, all of this information is rather clearly-defined and discriminate. This is an encylcopedia, and this is the information that belongs here. Alansohn (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for the reasons well-expressed by others. --Ben Best (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Getting rid of these articles is taking away information about an upcoming U.S Presidental Election. This is not right. America69 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a guide, it is an encyclopaedia; should we post transcripts of candidates campaign ads as well? [[Guest9999 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Problem is that WP:NOT#GUIDE specifically lists 1) Instruction manuals, 2) Travel guides, 3) Internet guides and 4) Textbooks and annotated texts as falling under its rubric, none of which have anything to do with the articles listed in this AfD. And besides, if we delete this article, don't we have to delete the articles for all candidates? After, all isn't Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is that
- Wikipedia is
- Keep. The article is a bit flawed, but that means changes are needed. Deletion is not warranted. More text, fewer straight lists, etc. Opinion polling for this election is certainly notable and encyclopedic and what's here (stubby though the text may be) is valuable. Perhaps we could summarize old polls in text form, only list the more recent polls in table form, and discuss a lot more. Thinking to the future, we will definitely want much of this information (again, probably in a summarized form). Concerning the present, it's clear that this is a widely used resource. This page doesn't warrant deletion at all, but it would be a particular shame to delete it this close to voting when so many external sources are linking in here. --Aranae (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Swpb, User:Luckydevil713. Rami R 18:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I check this article every day in the lead-up to state primaries. Its a wonderful collection of polls that keeps me informed, rather than depending on 24-hour news networks who only pay attention to their own polls. Coffee and TV (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Hi everyone. I apologise for probably violating loads of protocol. My opinion on this matter is that this article is quite simply very useful, which I think along with 'existing' and 'being verifiable,' -does- qualify it to remain. While it is certainly not a conventional encyclopedia article -now-, that is because the parameter these polls are trying to estimate has not been realised yet. Once the primaries are held, it will be possible to reflect and analyse, decide which polls were most accurate, trying to make out if whether trends were discernible, weighing the pitfalls of comparing data from different polling companies, &c. All of this data -will be- crucial for the future article about the 2008 primaries to which these pages will naturally turn. That article, I think everyone can agree, will be a conventional encyclopedia article, and very much strengthened by the retention of these articles now. -anticlimacus— few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Very useful compilation of polling statistics that is unique. Probably more almanacic than encyclopedic, but a very useful, insightful article. The synthesis and analysis are largely graphic in nature, but wholly proper for this environment. Dawginroswell (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ridiculously Strong Keep. Superb encyclopedic article. I visit it all the time, and I've referenced it in conversation as an example of what's great about the wikipedia. I think that a lot of times people vote for the deletion of articles on the basis that they're not encyclopedic when in fact the only thing that's kept such articles out of encyclopediae in the past is the limitation of previous technologies. The encyclopédistes would have written hymns of praise to this article, and I would too if I could write. Kennethmyers (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This is very helpful info on the upcoming primaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.147.220 (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Same as all the above. A useful set of articles to which I refer to quite often. Hektor (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. In addition to being useful, the information is well-organized and deals with a very specific subject. I don't think this qualifies as 'sprawling'. few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Well, my thoughts are pretty subjective, in that I have generated 25 some pages of line graphs and bar charts for the 'Graphical Representation' page. This is my first Wiki contribution, though I have been a fan for years. I stumbled onto the page with all that data shortly after it was created, and it was far superior to any of the other entries you get from an 'election polls' google, in that all the polls going way back are on the same page. Then I noticed the Graphics link, and for some reason my Firefox browser didn't see any of the charts done by Robapalooza ... I thought the pages had perhaps been created with an outline, inviting someone to create some graphs, so I did, posting links to web pages I generated. It was not until maybe a month later that I happened to look at the page in IE, and there were all those marvelous charts done by Rob. So, I have tried to structure my charts since as support data. Saw the advice to provide some verbal context the other day, but, being a newbie, I feel like it's Rob's page.
I feel like the graphs of polling data are a vital part of understanding what might go on in what I consider to be a very important election. The data is arranged on the 'Opinion Polling' page in such a way as to make it very easy to update the graphs, which I would plan to do frequently as the election draws near.
I have a program that tells who hits which of the above pages on a moment to moment basis, geographic locations of visitors are from all over the place, and daily volumes are building steadily.few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] - Keep. While the data itself may be bad, the graphs (and trends) that result from the data, the current leaders in states that result from the data, and the trends observable simply by looking at the data are all valuable. None of that could exist without the data. If you were to remove the data, there would still be a need to indicate leaders in various articles. This would cause a lot of dispute about the merits of various polls. Perpetualization (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Keep per ]
- Strong Keep. As User:Southern Texas mentioned above, this is a issue of common sense. These polls are not just meaningless statistics, they are used to track the status of the candidates through out the election and are a key fundamental in political campaigns. I think deleting them would be a huge mistake. Rtr10 (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's worth noting that these pages get visitors from all over and outside the normal sphere of wikipedia editors. Political sites and blogs link into here. It's possible that some of the above "voters" are questionable, but I think it's more likely they are good faith small-scale contributors that are here largely for the election coverage. With voting starting in a matter of days, you managed to pick just about the busiest time for visitors to put these articles up for deletion. I make this statement for what it's worth in determining consensus as many of these individuals are probably real and large in number, but may also have limited experience with wikipedia as a whole. My opinion (note: I have "voted" above) is that those who advocate deletion have outlined flaws in the pages (why the pages needs work), but have not given sufficient reason as to why they need to be deleted as opposed to just improved upon. --Aranae (talk) 07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In order for this to be an unbiased article, it must not exclude some polling methods and samples while including others - unless the heading is changed. The merits and disadvantages of various methodology must be explored - not relegated to discussions. Graphs would be fine if they were all-inclusive, or at least separated by categories, questions, candidates included, &c. As it is, the graphs are misleading, and provide ample opportunity for the manipulation of statistics. As covered and outlined in the article's discussion page, this article would require a major rewrite. Until then, it must go. JLMadrigal (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article is verifiable, encyclopedic, and very useful information. You might not find this information in a regular encyclopedia (just try and find the opinion polling for the primaries by state for the 1976 election in your World Book), but I think that's the entire point of the Wikipedia, we can put more information in here. I think it's silly that we're even discussing deleting these articles. -GamblinMonkey (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the individual polls, with their statistics, are widely reported and thus meet the WP requirements. DGG (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. These articles are valuable in describing the history of the 2008 presidential campaign. I have used them several times as very useful link targets from the individual candidates' campaign articles, to support assertions such as "X led Democratic national polls for most of the year" or "throughout 2007, Y never rose above 3 percent in Republican national polls". Without having these articles, I'd have to put together a long string of cites hoping to fairly represent poll results. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I refer to this article frequently to get an overall picture of Republican polling for the election. 75.14.210.121 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC) (That was me. The Jade Knight (talk))[reply]
- Delete because Wikipedia is not an index of external links or an indiscriminate list of things (even when those things are opinions polls about presidential elections). This may be useful but it is not an encyclopedia article. Move it someplace else. Rossami (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is discriminate, verfiable, notable, and encyclopedic information concerning an election for the highest political office in a superpower. I check these articles probably at least once a week. Best, --Tally-ho! 03:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I have also relied on this page frequently, but I have to agree that this is not really encyclopedia material. I don't think the purpose of wikipedia is to give up-to-date current affairs statistics or serve as a bookmarks page for such data. The utility of the page is not an argument for it being proper content. I think that it would be appropriate for someone who objects to this page's deletion to volunteer to maintain and host it or a similar page on a non-encyclopedia wiki or similar site. Perhaps it belongs on the Political Science Wiki. Chriscorbell (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There's nothing more encyclopedic than this: it is important to know the course of the campaign by reading poll numbers. --Checco (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The ongoing nature of United States Presidential nominations is noteworthy. Blah42 (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the person who created the Polling By State page, I'll just say that my intention was to help out those people who would like to see how various candidates fare in state-by-state head-to-head match-ups, which some may consider useful in deciding for whom to vote. I understand the Wikipedia policy, and I agree that much of the information could be removed without really impacting the page's relevance. For example, a single poll result per state, or an average or trend line for each state, might be retained, and a narrative text summarizing the use, issues in polling methodology, etc., might be included. The question then becomes, which poll result to keep (latest poll? 5-poll rolling average? regression analysis?). I would very much like to have seen these issues raised on the discussion pages of the sites in question, rather than having them nominated for deletion. Doktorliability (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These pages meet the basic policies of WP:NPOV; they are extremely useful; and they do provide more encyclopedic context than mere lists of numbers. I think that they are necessary adjuncts to the main election articles, but might be convinced that a transwiki was appropriate if a suitable target can be identified. However, unless obne is found this information should be kept. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, I really don't see a case for nominating this at all. Other election articles usually have sections on polling before the election; in this election's case, the polling section got so large that it was more sensible to split it into its own article. Verifiable, useful, encyclopedic, cited content -- so why delete? —Nightstallion 10:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, This is an excellent example of the virtues of Wikipedia -- user-provided, content-rich, fact-based, useful information. - few or no other edits since December 2006 outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Well done to the nominator for focusing discussion on this issue. I agree that this clearly falls outside our policies as outlined in the nomination and further smacks of the unencyclopedic recentism that we have made a concerted effort to discourage. I suggest this be brought to DRV one way or the other to elaborate on what consensus our policies suggest, since the morass of competing opinion above lacks focus. Eusebeus (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but get rid of some of the older data. A lot of this page is useful, such as knowing who is ahead in each state, and to have the map without data would be ridiculous. I do find the page a bit big, if we were to restrict it to polls from November on it might be an improvement. talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Virtually every election page includes a section on opinion poling. Numerous major elections have separate articles. If you think this should go, then so should United States presidential election, 2008, as noted by the link at the very top of the page.--Patrick Ѻ 18:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Very important and useful article. —]
- Keep and update - per everyone else who said keep. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Part of the importance (and fun) of tracking the poll data is watching the ebbs and flows of the line graphs from month to month of the various one-on-one matchups, as events occur in the world. For this reason it is necessary to retain the older data. Hkball (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Here is the full text of WP:NOT#STATS:
- Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
- Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists.
- It doesn't in any manner ban lists. It simply states some statistical lists are "confusing" and even offers suggestions on readability (explanatory text and including infoboxes). With only referencing WP:NOT#STATS and referring to perceived past consensus, the nominator has given no valid reason to delete this article --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. The nominator has given very strong reason toimprove the article and none for deleting it. Do we really think that history won't care wht the polls were saying after the election is over. Read about the 2004 election where all everyone talks about is how Dean was ahead or it was Dean vs. Gephart in IA, yet Kerry won there. These numbers are notable, they just need some better presentation. --Aranae (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep please people, break all the rules if rules determine that these incredibly useful articles are to be deleted. --Jeffmcneill talk contribs 08:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an incredibly useful source of information, probably one of the best on the web. Ruaraidh-dobson (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable, verifiable, and presents significant context. -- ]
- Snowball keep. talk) 16:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to List of Sex and the City episodes. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution (SATC episode)
- )
Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for failing ]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect per ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Utah Preparatory Academy
- Utah Preparatory Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article is written like an advertisement (content appears to be directly from school's promotional materials) and does not assert topic's importance/notability. (Indeed, it doesn't even actually say that it's a school.) In a quick web search, I failed to find any evidence of notability. I don't think the school merits an article. If it does merit an article, a completely new article needs to be written. Orlady (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Orlady (talk) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for deletion. The Boys Ranch is a subsidiary of the Academy. The article about the boys ranch has essentially the same issues (in fact, it has much of the same content) as the Academy article:
- Utah Preparatory Academy Boys Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--Orlady (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I... fixed it up. In 5 minutes. You could have done that. Yeah, you. Keep. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- holy crap it's not a school after all-then what makes it notable, Fresheneesz? Wikipedia is not a directory of rehab joints. Delete as nonnotable. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable rehab facility. Keep it civil everyone. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 29 Google hits, out of which I couldn't find enough reliable, independent sources to create a neutral article out of. No Google News hits. No Google News Archives hits. If it could be shown that adequate sources are out there, I'd change my mind. talk) 20:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. JERRY talk contribs 15:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NOTE The closing of the above AfD is incomplete. The second school co-nommed has not been dispositioned. A message has been left for the closing admin to remedy this. Before closing-out and archiving the associated log, please ensure this other school is properly dispositioned or relisted. The article still bears the AFD notice which references this discussion page. JERRY talk contribs 05:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--Tone 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makoa combatives
- Makoa combatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable martial art. Created by a User with a conflict of interest. Has been speedied once before. Creator keeps removing the speedy tag, and now my speedy tag has been removed by another editor for what I consider uninformed opinion, so here we are. 7 Google hits. Corvus cornixtalk 18:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I removed the speedy tag because it was incorrectly used, the tag read " Speedy concern: It is an article about a real person that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". Now since when has a martial arts system been a real person? As far as I can tell this article is not legitimately covered by any of the CSD criterion, and AfD is the correct venue. RMHED (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- db-nn is supposed to apply to all non-notable events, organizations, companies, products, etc. I can't help it that the wording of the tag isn't correct, I used the correct tag. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The template got changed - I have reverted it - [2]. Corvus cornixtalk 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- db-nn is supposed to apply to all non-notable events, organizations, companies, products, etc. I can't help it that the wording of the tag isn't correct, I used the correct tag. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as being about something which lacks third-party sources unless any care to be provided.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Beginning with "rare and little known" is a dead giveaway to NN. talk) 22:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film)
- The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and restore former naming as above. There is nothing, nada, zilch in Google News Archive since Myers was attached to the project in May, which is exactly where it was when previous stars were attached. Could be in D-Hell forever. Fails We are not a directory of films in development. --Dhartung | Talk 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the notability guidelines for films; should the project enter production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it probably won't get made in 2009. Alientraveller (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henrik Kreüger
- Henrik Kreüger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Work as teacher or as consulting engineer is not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. No detail and/or references provided about what are his important contributions to ventilation and isolation. May warrant a mention in article of his cousin Ivar Kreuger, but nothing else of note here. -xC- 18:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of historical persons, even if they have had their lives taken note of in trivial detail by reliable sources. But I don't really know.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as "head master" of RIT seems to be the equivalent of college/university president. We don't seem to have articles on any of these (I didn't check them all), though, but then WP:CSB suggests we might want to account for more limited non-English sources online and for a pre-WWII topic. --Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I think head of KTH (think Sweden's MIT) passes WP:PROF, Here's the list of heads of KTH (in swedish, cannot find equivalent page in English). Also, he was structural engineer on the radio towers at a UNESCO world heritage site transmitter station [3], [4] [5]. This is mentioned prominently in the bio on wp:sv, but not in this wp:en version. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; head of a major Swedish university seems to be a notable position. I would say that people who have had their lives take note of in trivial detail by reliable sources are exactly the type of people that deserve Wikipedia articles.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep Fails (verifiable)WP:V issues need addressing 16:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)) --Alfadog (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Comment What's not verifiable? [6] is a better source than I've seen for a lot of these articles. Susan Hockfield has an article, and if KTH=MIT, I don't think she's any more notable than Henrik is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, assuming that I have any clue as to what that says, where is the link to that in the article? If something is not sourced properly in the article, then it fails ]
- Yes, it has. WP:V. The policy is not worded as well as it should be to clarify what is required of foreign-language sources. --Alfadog (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read as saying that English-language sources are preferred to non-English sources, if equivalent quality sources can be found, and providing certain requirements if a quote is used in an article. That's all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it has.
- Well, assuming that I have any clue as to what that says, where is the link to that in the article? If something is not sourced properly in the article, then it fails ]
- Comment What's not verifiable? [6] is a better source than I've seen for a lot of these articles. Susan Hockfield has an article, and if KTH=MIT, I don't think she's any more notable than Henrik is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per Pete Hurd. The president of a major university in Sweden is undoubtedly notable. I have cleaned up the article a little bit and added a reference that Pete mentioned. I have replaced "headmaster" with "president", as that seems a more appropriate translation of the Swedish "föreståndare". Perhaps the creator or somebody else could complete the refence to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and make clear what it actually references? --Crusio (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the reference to the "Swedish National Encyklopedia" and added the older reference to Nordisk familjebok linked by User:Prosfilaes. The author of this page, User:Lidingo, has not worked on Wikipedia since the 23rd, and is probably away for the holidays. Olaus (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, without doubt. I must admit Alfadog's reading of WP:RSUE sounds quite strange to me, and in all these years has never even touched my mind, and not only mine, as it's been often discussed and quoted.--Aldux (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as there is a clear consensus that any neutrality and/or accuracy problems with this article are amenable to editorial resolution. John254 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legal intoxicants
- Legal intoxicants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article will always be either biased, or inaccurate because of the variation among jurisdictions as to what constitutes an illegal drug. Aware of the problem of disparity, an editor has almost amusingly tried to repair it with the tendentious claim in the introduction that the UN's
- Keep As the definition is from the what the UN considers legal there should be no isue re differing jurisdictions, not sure what Dernged finds amusing in that, and indeed its the first afd reasoning i have seent hat manages to include an attack against another editor, and for actually trying to make the article better. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a valid encyclopedic subject. It may need cleanup, more citations, neutrality checking, but that doesn't require deletion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to actually address any of my concerns? I wrote quite extensively about why this isn't an appropriate encyclopedic topic, but I can't argue my case against a mere assertion. deranged bulbasaur 22:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have always had concerns about the article; it has potentital to deviate from the individual articles as material (both useful and not so much) is added here rather than to the individual articles. Perhaps it would be better as a List of legal intoxicants, or, more accurately, List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. As long as the article exists, I'll watch it for vandalism, linkspam, and such, but if it went away, I wouldn't be perturbed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nominator's concerns about bias are noted, but this is absolutely not an indication of any violated policy of Wikipedia. The first sentence, "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and which people who are seeking intoxication by legal methods use," is certainly beyond controversy, and an encyclopedic discussion of it, if backed by enough reliable sources supporting different views, is the essence of how an article grows and improves. Problems with content do not constitute a reason to delete topics, they indicate that these articles require more care than something about a socially or emotionally neutral one. ◄Zahakiel► 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between saying that the article's present content is biased, which thing I have not said, though I think it true, and saying that it's impossible to give neutral coverage to this topic because a bias inheres in it. Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant. Your assertion that the statement "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" is without controversy astounds me to the point that I don't know how to respond. deranged bulbasaur 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... no. Let's take a look-see at that statement, "Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant." Well, we are talking about content problems (you haven't objected to anything else except content, and it looks like you're also talking about potential content, which you don't think can be presented in an unbiased manner) and this is a deletion discussion, so no, it's not irrelevant that "content problems are not a reason for deletion." I'm going to stand by that statement, which seems pretty obvious to me. The line I quoted from the article is beyond controversy because it describes intoxicants that are legal. Since the article is actually about legal intoxicants, it's almost a truism. ◄Zahakiel► 02:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a difference between saying that the article's present content is biased, which thing I have not said, though I think it true, and saying that it's impossible to give neutral coverage to this topic because a bias inheres in it. Everything you said about content problems not being a reason for deletion is completely true and completely irrelevant. Your assertion that the statement "Legal intoxicants are intoxicating drugs which are not prohibited by the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" is without controversy astounds me to the point that I don't know how to respond. deranged bulbasaur 23:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep- nominator has been talking erm... not been convincing.:) If there are holes in the article as it stands (which is yet to be proven) fix them. It's not an impossible article. Merkinsmum 00:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's cute how you say I've been talking bullshit without actually saying it. I am the only one here who has actually made an argument. You certainly haven't made one. It must be opposite day and I didn't even know. deranged bulbasaur 00:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that I am forced to argue against potential articles rather than this actual one, so I will dutifully argue against List of intoxicants and psychoactives not included in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Now, the convention includes no provision against analogs, so all the tryptamines and phenethylamines excepting the few enumerated chemicals in the convention would need to be added as "legal" under the convention even though they are effectively illegal in practically every signatory country. Already we see that should such an article actually stick to its topic, it would soon progress to an indiscriminate and unwieldy list, which could easily be anticipated by the fact that it's defined in terms of a negative. When listing things that are not among a specific finite set, the number of entities fitting the criteria can usually grow almost unbounded. The utility of such a list, given that it would not coincide with the actual law of any extant country, is small. There we hit on an even deeper problem, because UN "law" is not actually law, but a sort of meta-law that countries agree to implement. It does not directly prohibit anything, so the entire topic is without a solid basis. In implementing this convention, countries have exercised considerable latitude in interpretation. Should the list conform to the Dutch interpretation of the convention that does not prohibit fresh psilocybe mushrooms, or the interpretation of most other countries that it does? Should it conform to the U.S. Congressional interpretation that allows Native American peyote use? What about the recent Supreme Court interpretation that allows religious ayahuasca use? If something is allowed only for religious use, is it legal or illegal? deranged bulbasaur 00:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would say the big problem with the article is the title. We have an article on the differing legislative approaches to pornography that different countries have, and there is no reason we shouldn't have an equivalent article on psychoactive chemicals. This articles title presupposes that there are always legal intoxicants, and that there are always illegal intoxicants. Neither is true, universally; but that should not prevent an article being created on the different cultural approaches towards intoxicants, and their legality. The article should merely be appropriately named, which this isn't of course. I would note though, that though some cultures define the illegality by purpose rather than chemical content (such as islamic cultures which quite frequently have nothing against a cup of refreshing coffee) and some purport to do so (but still fail to allow purely ritual use of hallucinogens for instance, like the United States), there are very few cultures that don't define their relationship towards intoxicating chemicals in *some* way. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see where "bias" comes in. Its not biased to define "legal drugs" in a particular way. Bias is about opinion - and this article can certainly be non-biased in that way. As for the issue of the definition of legal drug, just say that if the drug is legal in anywhere notable, then its legal, and say where its legal - problem solved. Fresheneesz (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is biased to define "legal drugs" in a way that does not congrue with the actual meaning of the words "legal drugs." Taking the topic as legal drugs and then defining legal drugs in terms of a specific document that is just a template for some drugs that should be in theory prohibited among some countries effectively incorporates a fallacy of arbitrary redefinition into the substrate of the article. As for your problem solving proposition, while I commend you for actually offering a solution, your article would be an indiscriminate list for the same reasons I listed in my above comment. It would be populated with an inordinate number of drugs whose legal status is effectively indeterminate for the reasons I gave in my nomination (analog act &c.) There's no way to resolve this emulsion to give drugs that are truly and certainly "legal" in a great many jurisdictions. deranged bulbasaur 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was originally called Legal drugs. The current title of Legal intoxicants is not an improvement because it is too narrow. Much of this article's material is covered by Prohibition (drugs) and Recreational drug use. What's really needed is an overall approach such as a project. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- acetaminophen, phenylephrine, and omeprazole. It was in part for such obviosities as this that the name was changed. Until there is some clarity in what the article is about (even if we all agree that it should be Things you can get high on without going to jail in some countries), it will always be a source of controversy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete everything in excess becomes intoxicating.. even water.. and it's perfectly legal.. this is a never ending story.. eating raw poultry too.. --Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 02:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think you mean anything in excess can become dangerous, or poisonous. I don't know anyone who would become "intoxicated" in the standard use of that word, by too much water or raw poultry, but it could certainly kill them under the right (wrong) conditions. If you very loosely define an intoxicant as any substance that can alter brain function then an anvil dropped on a person's head or a dose of cyanide is an intoxicant also :) There's a discriminate enough definition that I think an article about those not regulated by law can be sustained. ◄Zahakiel► 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep valid and genuine encyclopedic subject. Article needs improvement and editing.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to actually give reasons for that in light of what has already been said? I've given several reasons that this is not the case, and they've all gone unopposed so far. Penny for your thoughts? deranged bulbasaur 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article needs improvement and exrensive re-editing for POV checking and more reference should be given, not deletion.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but change to 'Legal intoxicants by country' or something similar to make it clear that no drug is legal in all countries, and that which is legal in one is not necessarily legal in another. This is a clear example of an article which desperately needs more of a worldwide view. (Perhaps the name should be changed to something like 'List of commonly legal intoxicants'.) Terraxos (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Babikan
- Robert Babikan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was
]- Delete - From my search of results, he ran British GT in 2000 (22nd in the championship), 1 race in 2001, and 1 race in the European Le Mans Series in 2001. No wins, nothing to really make him notable as a driver. The359 (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a one sentence article it should be deleted, probably near speedy limits as WP:CSD#A1 (no context). That being said, he raced in several quite notable series. Even though he had only a few total races in those series, the criteria needed to satisfy the sanctioning bodies in those series probably make him notable. So my opinion is that starting in just a few races in these internationally well-known series make him inherently notable. This discussion is about his ability to be notable, not the cleanliness and size of the article. Royalbroil 02:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO, no assertion of notability and, all due respect to the previous, I am not inclined to assume that he is notable because he started notable races. --Alfadog (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to this site, he won the British Porsche Carrera in 1996. Would that make Babikan notable? It's just a national one-make series. --Pc13 (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not for me. And as far as the "Le Mans" racing, that was not the 24 Hours of Le Mans, it was a short-lived series that bore the name in which he raced a GT car (lowest class on the track) as, I think, a privateer. Little notability there. --Alfadog (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Webb Miller
This article asserts notability but doesn't really show it. Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability tests such as WP:PROF. Like most college lecturers, has written one or 2 things, but not broken out from the norm.Obina (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable for ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google scholar search shows, besides a truly ridiculous number of citations to BLAST, many other highly cited works. This is a level of academic impact well above the average professor and I think should be enough to pass WP:PROF #3 and #4. He has also received recent popular press attention (including in National Geographic and the Times of India) for some research involving mammoth DNA, and a broader search finds newspaper coverage of some of his other research as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Without having to do anything other than read the article as it stands, I note that BLAST is highly, highly notable--what percentage of biologists today use it? It's astoundingly high, I'm sure. Moreover a regular collaborator with Gene Myers is likely notable. --Lquilter (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even someone who's in the least prestigious spot on the list of BLAST authors is notable without any doubt. --Crusio (talk) 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per Crusio. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. I'd like to urge participants of the debate to flesh out the merger proposition at the talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Potter newspapers and magazines
- )
The page describes a fictional topic without any real world context or information - it is effectively a plot summary for a specific part of series of books. It has been decided by
- Keep adequate notability at this point thanks to the movies as well as the books. JJL (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - General ]
- Comment The introduction is currently very short, but that is where notability and tying into all other HP articles is established. Perhaps it just needs some expansion. -Fsotrain09 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the last deletion went to talk) 00:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason was given for the deletion review decision by the closing adim and I would dispute your interpretation. The main points brought up during deletion review were that there was no consensus to delete in the original AfD and that several arguements for deletion simply stated there were no sources - which was incorrect as sources were found during the course of the debate - both of these reasons were perfectly valid. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Personally I still do not think that the topic is ]
- Keep I know lots of people use Wiki to write fanfiction, and I know I do. Deleting this would hurt the poeple who want to learn and use this to make their fanfic factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.204.26 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely people writing fanfiction will have read the books, there is nothing in in this article that is not in the books. If you didn't know already, there is a Harry Potter Wiki [7] which would probably be a better source for any fanfiction you want to write as its content is not limited by such things as real world information. It is - likely - compiled and edited by people who have a great interest in and are big fans of Harry Potter who are probably more in touch with the needs of a fanfiction writer than the general Wikipedian. [[Guest9999 (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Delete, still fancruft with no real world notability. desat 10:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Harry Potter universe. Despite the real-world sources, there is no real-world content, but I can see why some of the content in this article would be of interest. Yes, Harry Potter universe is already long, but the answer is to trim the unnecessary stuff, not expand the plot into new articles. – sgeureka t•c 19:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I don't think the article has enough content in it to justify separation from the main universe article. Master of Puppets Care to share? 23:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. Insufficient real-world context for an independent article and smacks of fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about merging into Fictional books? Lord Opeth (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it concerns a memorable aspect of the film, the article is presented in a discriminate manner, and the article contains references. Sincerely, --Tally-ho! 19:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment every article descriminates (apart from List of Everything) - not a reason to keep. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Therefore, calling this article "indiscriminate" is inaccurate and not a reason to delete. Best, --Tally-ho! 17:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Therefore, calling this article "indiscriminate" is inaccurate and not a reason to delete. Best, --
- I do not think anyone has called the article indiscriminate - what people have refered to is the policy ]
- If Wikipedia is established with the goal to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then we can and should be more open-minded with our content than any other encyclopedia. Some think Wikipedia should be a collection of as much factually accurate information as possible. Best, --Tally-ho! 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If Wikipedia is established with the goal to "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge", then we can and should be more open-minded with our content than any other encyclopedia. Some think Wikipedia should be a collection of as much factually accurate information as possible. Best, --
- I agree that consensus of the community as a whole (if such a thing actually ever exists). [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Those pages are also edited practically daily and we also have an ignore all rules policy. Regarding consensus, if a page is deleted and consensus changes to keep it, it is much easier to just leave the article or redirect/merge without deleting so that when consensus does change everyone doesn't have to start over from scratch. Best, --Tally-ho! 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but in that case why delete any article as ]
- Truthfully, we probably should not delete any article that is not libelous or a hoax as the community clearly does not have a consensus on what is and is not "encylopedic." Best, --Tally-ho! 23:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you then say that the many current policies and guidelines which deal with inclusion criteria (such as ]
- To some extent, I think it is accurate to say that a sizable segment of our contributors are not entirely in agreement on those policies as their talk pages and edit histories would suggest. Clearly there is no firm consensus on what is and is not notable or what Wikipedia should or should not be, as these clarifications are debated almost constantly. Consider the last couple of weeks of edits to the NOT article. If you look in the edit summaries, you'll see, "rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are," "rv policy alteration with no consensus nor discussion," "you might want to discuss and seek a consensus for that edit," "people keep getting this wrong," etc. With all those reverts, how can I even cite that article as policy, considering that the time at which I might cite it might look notably different than it will a couple of hours and edits later? Thus, we should err on the side of not discouraging or turning off good faith editors. Best, --Tally-ho! 01:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the reality is that whatever happens to the policies and guidelines a significant proportion of the community is not going to be happy. If the issue persists the result could well be some kind of schism or exodus from the project. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Well, I definitely agree with you there. By the way, I might not be able to reply again for the next few hours as I am thinking of getting the PPV for Tally-ho! 02:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I definitely agree with you there. By the way, I might not be able to reply again for the next few hours as I am thinking of getting the PPV for
- To some extent, I think it is accurate to say that a sizable segment of our contributors are not entirely in agreement on those policies as their talk pages and edit histories would suggest. Clearly there is no firm consensus on what is and is not notable or what Wikipedia should or should not be, as these clarifications are debated almost constantly. Consider the last couple of weeks of edits to the NOT article. If you look in the edit summaries, you'll see, "rv, it is not an attempt to slant anything, thanks for the assumption of good faith. it's a statement of the way things are," "rv policy alteration with no consensus nor discussion," "you might want to discuss and seek a consensus for that edit," "people keep getting this wrong," etc. With all those reverts, how can I even cite that article as policy, considering that the time at which I might cite it might look notably different than it will a couple of hours and edits later? Thus, we should err on the side of not discouraging or turning off good faith editors. Best, --
- Truthfully, we probably should not delete any article that is not libelous or a hoax as the community clearly does not have a consensus on what is and is not "encylopedic." Best, --
- Those pages are also edited practically daily and we also have an ignore all rules policy. Regarding consensus, if a page is deleted and consensus changes to keep it, it is much easier to just leave the article or redirect/merge without deleting so that when consensus does change everyone doesn't have to start over from scratch. Best, --
- I agree that
- I do not think anyone has called the article indiscriminate - what people have refered to is the policy ]
- Comment every article descriminates (apart from List of Everything) - not a reason to keep. [[Guest9999 (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Merge per User:Sgeureka. Luckystars (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Just needs some work that's all. Sources and what not can come if it is worked on. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One thing this article is not is a "detailed plot summary". The subject runs through the entire series, and a detailed plot summary of that would be about 60 timers longer than this article. Even the briefest possible plot summary would be longer than this article. When WP:NOT says "plot" it should br read literally. plot, characters, setting, are all separate elements of fiction. And I dont see what indiscriminate has to do with it--this is about something very specific things, and the more important received the greater coverage. If we started covering all the magazines invented in fan fiction that might be open to reasonable objection. DGG (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the policy in qestion (verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". The policy is not meant to refer to the topics of individual articles, all topics (apart from List of Everything discriminate information to some extent, making the idea almost meaningless. [[Guest9999 (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- As stated above, the policy in qestion (
- Keep, agree with DGG, appears to be a misunderstanding of WP:NOT.--Aldux (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Bduke (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O. Richard Bundy
- O. Richard Bundy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Is this "music" academic truly notable? This article has been AfD'ed once before in December 2005, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a majority of "delete"s. I still don't think this article shows notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The Penn State Blue Band seems on the right side of notability, and the current director would probably be notable by default. StaticElectric (talk) 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I disagree that notability is inherited as StaticElectric is suggesting. I don't see this passing WP:PROF, I'm willing to be swayed on him passing WP:MUSIC, I'll watch for further debate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if the band he conducts is sufficiently notable. I do think in this case the guy who runs the thing has notability. DGG (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Seems notable for his field, given Penn State's size and all. MBisanz 10:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep per StaticElectric. --VS talk 22:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a complete failure to meet any of the notability standards; conducting a notable band doesn't make one notable. There is also a failure to meet the policy requirement of talk) 22:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--Tone 14:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organisms that are dangerous to humans
- Organisms that are dangerous to humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This list is highly indiscriminate and vague. It is woefully incomplete and has little hope of ever reaching completion. It purports to list, among other things, all animals that have been known to injure humans in self-defense. Practically all animals, even docile ones, have some instinct of self-preservation that will make them lash out at an attacker. It is hard for me to conjure an example of an animal that either does not lash out at an aggressor, or that completely lacks the means wherewith to cause some injury to man. Any such pathetic creature would be evolutionarily disadvantaged to the point of preclusion from existence. Even promising examples like small frogs or caterpillars will usually contain at least a mild toxin or have the capacity to bite, at least in theory. However, even if that would not make this voluminous enough, then we come to the plants. Most plants are toxic. Even when this toxicity does not rise to the level of notoriety or lethality, plants are known for their secondary metabolites which generally have structures (alkaloidal, for example) wherein some degree of pharmacological effect is almost inevitable. Even plants that are commonly eaten will usually have some part other than the edible one that contains a toxin. Issues of vagueness arise from consideration of whether allergens, such as peanuts, fall within purview of this list. There are also plants such as cycads that inherit some measure of toxicity from a symbiote (e.g. a cyanobacterium), raising yet another issue of vagueness. The same issues for plants also apply to fungi. Then we come to the microbes. Some of the microbes already listed are almost exclusively infective to those with compromised immune systems (e.g. Bacillus subtilis), being otherwise innocuous. Given that in cases such as AIDS even one's own healthy gut flora can cause infection, we come to the now familiar situation where it would be hard to exclude any organism from the list. In abstract, there's nothing wrong with simply drawing the line, but it's too involved an issue to be handled in a disinterested way for a topic as broad as this one. deranged bulbasaur 17:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Delete Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Theoretically, any organism bigger than a dime could be dangerous to a human, if it got lodged in their ]
- Delete - if completed the list would include pretty much every organism. [[Guest9999 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Weak keep if converted to List of organisms which have been verified as having attacked humans which I feel would be the most encyclopedic and objective format for such a list (not necessarily at that exact page title, but with that concept). What do people make of this idea? It'd render the neutrality concerns moot.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even the rename suggested by HSR would have its inherent oddities. Given that, as pointed out, anything could kill a human, the list becomes pretty indiscriminate very quickly. Grutness...wha? 22:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's a worthy, and possibly-workable, idea in there somewhere, but as it currently framed this list is too broadly defined. --Lockley (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 09:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to "List of..." or Categorize contents. Flibirigit (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be a fair bit of work that went into this, and it's an interesting topic. I disagree that the majority of oganisms are dangerous to humans (dangerous = can do permanent harm / are life threatening in a normal interaction), there's plenty of organisms for whom we're simply not a typical predator so they don't need defense, or which use other tactics for survival.
- Just because rabits can't kick a tiger's ass it dosen't mean they're extinct, there's also running, living in a different habitat, multiplying like well.. rabbits :D, you get the ideea. Maybe it should list organisms by number of fatalities per year or something so that we can eliminate the theoretical cases that never really happen and get a relevant picture. If there's an article like that already it could be merged/checked with that.--Helixdq (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I lol'd at this page. It is, for the reasons addressed above, clearly an indiscrimiate list. There might be something in shifting the page to a page of animals that are notoriously dangerous to humans, but how we would define that, I don't know. I believe the current form should be deleted, with the possibility of recreation with much more defined criteria. I (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I created the page a year or two ago because I thought it was a topic that interested people. Judging by the number of edits, I feel that was a fair assessment. Even though the definition of "dangerous to humans" is ambiguous, I don't think readers are at risk of being misled: anyone who is curious will link to the articles that interest them, on the various organisms. The key strength that Wikipedia has over Encylopaedia Britannica, other than its larger content, is its richness of linking and listing. The supposed consensus that Wikipedia is not a list is total pap: referencing and indexing and listing are all closely related, and they are how we humans organize knowledge. The real question is this: Does this article mislead or confuse readers or waste their time? No, the topic is relevant, and the article can be improved.Anthony717 (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I'm encouraged to respond constructively by altering the article's name and contents to comply with my original intent: Name, "Deadly organisms", and first paragraph, "This is a list of organisms that are known to kill humans. Inclusion on this list requires a certain notoriety, such as that gained from news reports; and each included organism must have repeatedly killed humans in a certain way. For the sake of inclusiveness, "organisms" includes viruses, in addition to animals, plants and others." The list would be drastically pared down, and inclusion of any contested organism would need to be defended by two references.Anthony717 (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm starting to think full keep now. It's an encyclopedic topic that needs cleanup, sourcing, etcetera, but not deletion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, animal attack redirects here. We should have an encyclopedic article on the concept of the animal attack as suffered by the likes of Timothy Treadwell and Steve Irwin.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article is non-notable per WP:N, highly ambiguous and not supportable given the high number of potentially dangerous organisms to humans. Mh29255 (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I still stand by my nomination despite the rewrite. The new premise is better than the old one, but most of the original concerns still apply. I encourage everyone who's enthusiastic about the rewrite to take the time to actually read the nomination, since I spent considerable time developing my reasoning there. In fact, this list has the potential to be even more arbitrary in a sense, because basing it on number and severity of reported incidents will give undue weight to organisms with which humans have routine contact. Canis familiaris is bound to remain, even though fatal dog attack is unlikely from any given animal, simply because the dog is such a common creature. The peanut example from the nomination exemplifies the same problem. There are plenty of very toxic plants that are unlikely to produce fatalities simply because they are bitter tasting, but how many people have died from anaphylaxis due to peanut? deranged bulbasaur 00:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here are a few more problems with the new version from the top of my head: horse riding accidents, rabies and syphilis. Does the horse belong on the list? There are plenty of fatalities to choose from, many of which are the result of the horse's direct action (say, bucking the rider off ), still it doesn't sit right with me that an animal should be on a list of deadly organisms just because people fall off of it and die. Rabies has the potential to make just about any mammal deadly. Fatalities due to rabies (a horrible disease) are fortunately a thing of the past as far as I know, but historical occurrences are easy to come by. Syphilis is an example of a disease organism that has completely succumbed to antibiotic therapy, and there's little danger of missing the symptoms so that it goes untreated. Is a once dangerous organism still game even if it is not dangerous anymore? Anybody have a story of someone gored by an Aurochs? deranged bulbasaur 01:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing to defend: I have made quite a few changes. The definition of "deadly" can be made very precise, and that by consensus. We could give a general minimum of about 100 proven deaths per organism, with allowances for a few notables. We could rule out most rabies vectors, except bats generally ("the bat"), since they include many otherwise non-deadly mammals, like raccoons. The total number of organisms is unlikely to exceed 250. Considering all the shows on cable television about sharks and the like, a "one stop" list for readers to link to other articles seems really useful. As for "what Wikipedia is not", Bah. If its educational, improve it or leave it. Anthony717 (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ooh, Ooh, I've got a perfect one. Mr. Hands. You can't rule that out on lack of notoriety, because it was all over the news and even resulted in a change in the law! deranged bulbasaur 01:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Viruses seem to be included in the lists even though there is some debate over whether they are living organisms. If they are to be included I believe there should be many more than the two currently in the list, from regularly watching List of viruses have been fatal? Other questions, mosquitos are included but aren't they only a vector, should only the arasite be included? Should the snail that hosts the paraite before the mosquito picks it up be included? So basicly still delete even with the changes as it is a hard to define, unmaintainable list. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- Comment the new name "deadly organisms" is much worse. For starters, all predators are deadly. Punkmorten (talk) 09:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete--Tone 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hellhound (Buffyverse)
- Hellhound (Buffyverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete - fails
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Tone 14:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As It Turns Out
- As It Turns Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No claim to notability CultureDrone (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as being extremely non-notable, with only one trivial mention in a source of questionable reliability known to exist. Author appears non-notable too, but he doesn't have an article. In fact, this is so non-notable that we may as well snowball close this now. It's a student play production.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. There must hundreds of plays at the same level of 'notability' as this - let's not go there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable article. Mh29255 (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Of The Land (film)
- Princess Of The Land (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. Prod claims this doesn't meet
- Comment - Is there any source for the existence of this project. Animation is quite long to produce, longer than a classical film, 4 years or more, so it could already be in production. But a source is needed. Hektor (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No citations, no sources. WP:NOT a fan site, etc. SpikeJones (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unable to turn up any sources with a search for the film title and pixar. IMDB has no entry for it. Completely fails ]
- Delete, for the reasons made by the nominator, and also ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge three of them into Replay Publishing and make these three redirects. I will leave any further merge of content to the main article. It can always be found in the history.Bduke (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second Season Pro Football
- )
Non-notable game, speedy was declined. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating
- )
- Replay Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Replay Baseball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- added by me (originally an A7 speedy by me, restored on request for hearing with related articles here) Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. No evidence of notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Merge/Redirect baseball, football, and basketball to Replay Publishing, per slight improvements to article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that the other Replay pages could probably be rolled into the main Replay Publishing page, I think that the Replay Publishing page qualifies as a notable subject. At least one game this company produces has been in the sports simulation community for over 30 years, and was only temporarily out of print due to rising costs associated with Major League Baseball licensing. The article includes references to prominent sites within the gaming community (boardgamegeek.com, tabletop-sports.com, and tabletopbaseball.org, which all give information and/or reviews of the product(s)/company in question. As such, it provides at least as much notable evidence as the APBA page, which does not even give sources for evidence of famous players that are listed as having played the game. I am the author of the Replay Publishing page. Kezzran (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources, no evidence or assertion of notability, slightly advertorial. Xoloz (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking reliable independent sources unless these are found.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep but I'm not convinced that the third-party coverage is substantial enough.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This being my first article, I'm having some trouble understanding where it falls short in notability, reliable sources, etc. I'd be most grateful if someone could enlighten me, in plain English. :) Specifically, I'm comparing this article to the APBA article, and am uncertain how mine falls short while that does not. I could probably point to other pages, but that is an easy one as it's part of the same genre as mine. Any information on how I could better prove notability and reliable sources (beyond the boardgame sites mentioned in the article) would be much appreciated. Again, identifying myself as the author of this article. Kezzran (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tell you where the article falls short when it comes to reliable sources: There are external links, but every single one of them is to a site owned by Replay Publishing. Although such links are useful to the casual reader, they must not be used alone: you must find non-trivial sources written by independent third parties such as magazines, newspapers, or anything not related directly to Replay Publishing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the reply Blanchardb. I must disagree with you that every single external link is a reference back to the site owned by Replay Publishing. In fact, one of the two external links is owned by Replay, and in my references section I site three independent sources that review Replay and/or discuss its history. My understanding is that sources for material go into a references section, and that external links are simply provided for additional information. If rectifying the article so it will meet the standards of Wikipedia is as simple as adding some of the reference/citation links to the external links section, I'll gladly do that. I'd like to reference the APBA page again, which has 5 external links, 3 of which point back to the company itself. It would seem that this article would also qualify for deletion based on this criteria. I'll change things up on the page, and I'd like you to take a look at it again to see if the article is up-to-snuff. Again, thank you for your time, I hope I can bring this article up to standard so that it may be included alongside similar articles, such as APBA and Strat-O-Matic. Kezzran (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can tell you where the article falls short when it comes to reliable sources: There are external links, but every single one of them is to a site owned by Replay Publishing. Although such links are useful to the casual reader, they must not be used alone: you must find non-trivial sources written by independent third parties such as magazines, newspapers, or anything not related directly to Replay Publishing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable article per ]- Updated the page with link to a newspaper article as well as providing more information on the main article Replay Publishing rather than linked pages of each game they produce. Continuing to cite sources and provide links in an attempt to demonstrate notability and proper sourcing. Currently seeking information from the book Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glenn Guzzo, the seminal book concerning the sports simulation community, which I've been told gives mention to Replay Baseball. Once I have this, I will provide that data on the Replay Publishing page. The page now has a significant number of citations and links, in comparison to other articles of the genre (see APBA). Further comments on the page would be appreciated, especially if it is now up to par, which I believe it is.Kezzran (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added citation of two books which discuss Replay Baseball, from Replay Publishing.Kezzran (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the page with link to a newspaper article as well as providing more information on the main article Replay Publishing rather than linked pages of each game they produce. Continuing to cite sources and provide links in an attempt to demonstrate notability and proper sourcing. Currently seeking information from the book Strat-O-Matic Fanatics: The Unlikely Success Story Of A Game That Became An American Passion by Glenn Guzzo, the seminal book concerning the sports simulation community, which I've been told gives mention to Replay Baseball. Once I have this, I will provide that data on the Replay Publishing page. The page now has a significant number of citations and links, in comparison to other articles of the genre (see APBA). Further comments on the page would be appreciated, especially if it is now up to par, which I believe it is.Kezzran (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one article only. I originally put speedy on Replay Publishing but the author has improved it since then. He has added references and, while work is still needed, there is proof of independent coverage of at least some of the games. The author is new to Wikipedia and he is struggling a bit to get it right but he is trying to do the right thing and I think that an acceptable article can be achieved. I recommend folding all the good content into one article, probably Replay Publishing. The others can be redirects. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Replay Publishing article still looks like an ad, but at least its subject's notability is asserted and sourced. I will not withdraw my nomination of this one without consensus to do so (though I support a withdrawal), but I feel that, should it be kept, the other three articles nominated here should be merged to it. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 03:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article Second Season Pro Football and merge other three nominated articles into it per comments by Blanchardb. Mh29255 (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments everyone. I do think it would be more logical to merge the other articles into Replay Publishing, being the umbrella company that publishes the three games. Thoughts? Kezzran (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article
Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it per above commentspossibly cleanup and add
) 02:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Keep Replay Publishing and redirect the others into it Per notability and possible spam issues.- Yes I like the thought process by previous commentators and now think that a Merge of all into Replay Publishing and then a good rewrite to remove the advertising style would work. --VS talk 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin'
- Kevin and Bean: We've Got Your Yule Logs Hangin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable album, but no speedy criterion available. A tell-all statement: Notes: Only 10,000 copies produced and distributed by Music Plus record stores. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 16:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources to indicate why its subject is important or significant. Tiddly-Tom 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Kevin and Bean Doc Strange (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge, of whatever relevant content, but I'd be inclined more just to delete as lacking relevance even to that article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PHOLED
- )
This article's contents have remained substantially unchanged since its creation by an anonymous editor in September 2005. The article is in substance only sourced by references to the website (which is offline) of the company owning the trademark on "PHOLED", Universal Display Corporation. Most or all internet coverage I'm immediately able to find on "PHOLED" seem to be press releases by this corporation. If no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources is uncovered in this AfD, this article should be deleted as non-notable and unverifiable. Sandstein (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean up spammy article that reads like a press release. NYT coverage and if you sift thru the PR on Google News Archive there's a bit more. --Dhartung | Talk 17:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. PHOLED is a unique lighting/display technology that is more than qualified for its own article on Wikipedia. Graham Wellington (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Graham is right, PHOLED deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Danh (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That may well be so, but an article requires substantial coverage by independent reliable sources, so as to satisfy our guideline WP:V. The NYT article cited by Dhartung is a good start, but be need a bit more. Sandstein (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, no point in keeping a withdrawn nom open now is there? Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
York Steak House
- York Steak House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability tag since March, unreferenced tag since March Sbowers3 (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC) Unsourced material can be deleted. Well, this whole article is unsourced and has been tagged for nine months, so the whole thing can be deleted. Without sources, notability cannot be verified. It has been tagged for notability for nine months. If someone thinks the subject is notable then provide some sources, and then remove the tags. Otherwise, the article should be deleted. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn now that it has been improved. Thanks to those who had the interest and energy to do it. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing ]
- Keep assuming that I can find additional sourcing, although not something that I intend to spend Christmas Day doing. From the internet is this appetizer [8]. This is one of those things that would be hard to believe now-- the somewhat tacky "medieval England" theme, placing a steak house in a mall, etc. -- but it was successful in a different era. These were a fairly prominent fixture in malls back in the 1970s, numbering in the hundreds. There was a time when families would go to a mall ("dressed up") for a nice dinner, and the "family restaurant" was as exclusive as an anchor store. In those communities where stores were closed on Sundays (blue laws were not uncommon prior to 1980), the steak house and the movie theater were among the few businesses open in the mall on a Sunday afternoon. The 70s also featured the trend toward the franchising of low-cost, cafeteria-style steak houses with "western" or, in this case, "old England" themes. The General Mills corporation made a foray into the restaurant business, and absorbed the losses as restaurants and malls changed. Google search is somewhat hampered by more ghits for "New York steak house" than for "York Steak House". Notable, however, on a variety of levels. And before anyone says, "go find the sources", I say, "Later. It's Christmas!" Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but source. Part of a suite of restaurant concepts from General Mills, of which the two chief survivors are Olive Garden and Red Lobster. Since these went under in the 1980s sources will be limited. AFD is not cleanup. [9][10][11][12]
- Keep - As these cites provided by Dhartung show the article meets the standards of WP:Note. I tried to do this earlier this year and ran into the same issue of news stories. I managed to learn there is a location still open in Columbus, Ohio. So here are a couple of more cites for you:
- Sam Reading (2003-12-26). "York Steak House photo galley". Smugmug.com. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
- "Travel guide listing for York Steak House in Columbus, Ohio". Mytravelguide.com. Retrieved 2007-11-14.
- The Smug Mug site is the work of a professional photographer/video producer thus it is a primary source, but I believe it meets the standards of WP:PSTS. This also appears to be a case of "I don't like it" by the nominator as when he prodded it, I removed the prod tag as the chain is notable.
- It's the lack of sources that I don't like - and it's been nine months since the unsourced and non-notable tags were put there (by someone else). Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia and without sources we don't have verifiability and we don't have notability. I'm going through old articles at Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability and prod'ing or afd'ing as many as I have patience for. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung and the fact that a national chain should be notable by default, right?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but improve - I found two good sources and added them to the list at the end of the article -- in less time than it typically takes me to nominate an article for deletion. However, I did not work on improving the actual article... --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, a7 no assertion of notability, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kick it touch football
- Kick it touch football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No prejudice against recreating this article once the sport becomes notable, but for the time being, this has no place on Wikipedia. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, and the article has improved during the process.--
Lady Libertine
- Lady Libertine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable, porno-movie stub. It doesn't appear to have made a lasting impact to, been at the top level of noteriety of, or was recognized as a critical part of its genre
- Keep - First this is not porno, this is a soft core erotic film like Emmanuelle for instance ; second it made the headlines in France due to the fame (at the time) of Sophie Favier (a TV host) who played in it, unfortunately for her, just before becoming famous. Hektor (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:N, pending the addition of references to reliable sources to support the claim by Hektor above. Sandstein (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You put me in the classical situation linked to pre-Internet (1983... ) events. If I m lucky I will find a source, but this is of course not the most likely outcome, and I have no complete sets of Le Monde or Paris Match of the 80s in my attic. Here is a DVD review which has some elements (at the bottom) to support my claim (CAUTION : SOME NUDITY) and a small piece in French communist daily L'Humanité : here Hektor (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I would vote keep but the articles author just basically admitted to violating ]
- Comment Not exactly, I wrote it from memory which was OR, but it happens that my memory is not too bad after all and after checking I have found sources which corroborate what I wrote and I have updated the text accordingly. So it was OR, and now it is sourced. Please judge the article on its current status. Hektor (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; seems notable enough, and the cites exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The film seems to be reasonably notable and the article is cited. Also, I see no reason to disbelieve Hektor that the film was reviewed in Le Monde as Sophie Favier did have a long television career in France according to the French wiki. Hopefully, Lady Libertine can be expanded and a source can be found. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dtn (printer designation)
- Dtn (printer designation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete per
]- Merge as a sentence or two into Computer printer. Not notable on its own. Also note that only the first two refs really relate to the acronym; the second two are just general sites for the two printer companies mentioned, Lexmark and HP. Tim Ross·talk 00:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge, trivial, ]
- Weak merge per Tim Ross, but preferably just delete as obscure jargon dicdef.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuantLib
Notability for this open source financial package has not been established. Ronnotel (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the article basically says: "we are here" and not much more. While the project may be popular (the activity on SourceForge suggests so) the current text brings almost no information to Wikipedia readers. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jamia Salfia (India)
- Jamia Salfia (India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced article about nn school or mosque. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing ]
- Delete per Sandstein. Unsourced stubs are worth little, anyway.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 12:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content strategy
- Content strategy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article does not assert notability. It calls it an emergent field, so it may be a
- Delete for now 18 million ghits, but the few I looked at were all advertising or wern't related to the article itself. This might be a valid field, but it shouldn't be here until notibility can be asserted through indpendent reliable sources. Mr Senseless (talk) 20:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mr. Senseless, and hopefully if it's recreated there'll be no weasels to be seen, because this article is full of their words, despite being quite short.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm editing the original entry to add citations supporting its notability. Bare with this newbie!--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A very fine example of marketese, many words saying little. There are two references to Jacob Nielsen but the mentioned articles do not define the term and do not claim there's a novel way to create and organize content. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to be more concrete in defining the practice up front. It is a very real and existing, albeit emerging, field of practice. I've also drawn an extensive reference from a job description for a 'content strategist' that outlines various responsibilties for the role. This should help inform my point that content strategy need be differentiated from copywriting per se. See copywriting's entry to get a hint of that distinction, too. I hope this is helpful.--Jeffmacintyre (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, too much of a how-to article. MBisanz 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to The Warriors (film) and redirect. I will leave further merge of content to others. It is available from the history. Some content is already there. Bduke (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Turnbull AC's (gang)
- The Turnbull AC's (gang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A fictional gang from a movie and video game. There are no independent reliable sources, or any other indication of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the edit history of User:WölffReik to see several similar articles recently created by that account. If the Turnbull AC's article gets deleted, then the other articles about fictional gangs from the Warriors film and video game should be deleted too, because they have the same issues. Spylab (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was planning to gang nominate the lot of them if this AfD results in a clear consensus for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the relevant articles and redirect the page. --Neon white (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in part to The Warriors (film). Sandstein (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Not notable on own. MBisanz 10:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely a merge into The Warriors due to NN reasons. --VS talk 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, withdrawn by nominator. CitiCat ♫ 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone
Also nominating: Riz Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- This band and its leader, Kerrang magazine noticed them briefly around 2001. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete only had one album released on a notable label, so therefore fails ]
- I don't want this page to be deleted particularly, but what I am sure of is that this band's notability or non-notability is definitely borderline (it's certainly not an A7) and worth having an AfD for.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I forgot to add that they may meet WP:MUSIC criterion 8 or 9 in that they were named best new band by Kerrang! magazine, which is not a major award but they did win one of the larger minor awards...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I feel that this band and its leader should be notable. But I really do have my doubts at the same time.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 04:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I forgot to add that they may meet
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No substantial third party coverage of this band is cited. Sandstein (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is an interview in Kerrang! magazine a reliable source? I used to have the exact magazine where this interview came from.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Found another non-trivial source.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Riz Story also directed a pornographic film and I am effectively certain (ha, oxymoron) that it is the same person as the guy in this band.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously consider anyone voting delete take a look at those sources. I don't want to lose this article, but I nominated it for deletion as a test of notability. Clearly there are multiple, non-trivial reliable published sources about this band.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom withdrawn due to my finding of many more third-party sources. When closing this AfD you may wish to consider that although not much third-party coverage is cited yet in the actual article, since the AfD began I have found enough sources for this to pass WP:N. I may merge Riz Story to Anyone and redirect, though.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Wisin & Yandel. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El Duo Dinámico
- )
The album that this stub refers to was renamed, and has its own page: Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. El monty (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wisin vs. Yandel: Los Extraterrestres. This would not have needed an AfD. Sandstein (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maithreyi Seetharaman
- Maithreyi Seetharaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I can't find reliable indedependent sources on this person. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards weak delete. There's this, this mention of something she wrote... but a lack of real third-party material.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not in favor of deletion. I have added two external links. One shows Maithreyi's biography from the Globalist. She is a real journalist on Bloomberg TV (from USA). She regularly reports live from the NYSE floor. She has also sat in the anchor position on Bloomberg. Sorry for the lack of development on the article. Emmadi (talk) 12:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The external link to Maithreyi's biography on the Globalist was deleated. Here is the link that verifys that she is a journalist (author) http://www.theglobalist.com/AuthorBiography.aspx?AuthorId=864 - Emmadi (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Even assuming assertions are true, I'm still not seeing a notable merida personality. MBisanz 10:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- she also reports for Bloomberg from the Nasdaq. She was also an anchor for CNBC in India. She did their evening shows..there are pictures of her in www.tvheads.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoadi (talk • contribs)
- Delete - there is enough about her on the Web to confirm the facts in the article. However, nothing really hangs together that she is notable enough to meet talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not enough evidence of notability to be including in WP.--VS talk 22:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400
- E-flite P-47D Thunderbolt 400 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
non-notable advertising like article AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At minimum it needs a strong clean-up. It does read like a catalog page. Probably a delete unless someone has a good reason to keep it.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry the above was my comment. Wasn't logged in.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no not trivial external sources. Lobojo (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MBisanz 10:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shams Beer
Notability not asserted. I could find no secure information that the brand was ever made in America - though it may have been imported at some point.. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 12:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced about the existence or notability of this beer prior to the Iranian revolution. The only source provided talks about a copycat currently being produced in the US. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Asserts no notability whatsoever. Only source is a link to a letters to the editor page which in turn links to a page of drinks people have emailed in that they remember from before the revolution and does not give significant coverage to Shams other than a name on the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling
- Pro-Pain Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a Google search seems to show likely notability, though the lack of news coverage is worrisome. Needs ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crawford's Corner
- Crawford's Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ran into this article while searching on green cats (these are cats that acquired a green coat due to drinking water with a high concentration of copper, in case you're wondering). Anyways searching for Crawford's corner Perennial Pictures Film Corporation gave 177 hits, not all of them states the show in question. Searching for Crawford's Corner alone yields a lot of unrelated hits. However, that google search did turn up pages on imdb and youtube that is directly linked to the show. Judging from various other media-related Afd's, having articles on those sites do not assert enough notability. The article only have the studio's site, the show's site and a blog. ---Lenticel (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WikiProject American Animation has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding T 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking this might violate a a speedy, the one on advertising. Hiding T 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating Crawford the Cat, made by same user. Kelvinc (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak delete per nom. Has been broadcast, but appears to lack third-party sources.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to lack that lasting impact or widespread knowledge. MBisanz 10:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus to delete, but added refimprove template to article. Davewild (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Cervenka
- John Cervenka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Notability problems; while I can find some references to John Cervenka in searches, they are only ever passing mentions in articles about MXC or a few one-episode parts he's played in sitcoms. Though he did seem to host Love Connection and Burt Luddin's Buffet, I can't find anything else about it. PirateMink 08:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject really does not have any presence on the searches that I ran. As noted above, passing mention at best for this comedian/actor. --Stormbay (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article doesn't mention it (yet), but Cervenka and other MXC people are alumni of the Groundlings. Borderline notability but my vote is, let's keep it to be conservative. --Lockley (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, seems to have scattered claims of notability but I think he might pass WP:N -- one major role as announcer, one as game show host, and a handful of bit parts, plus a background as one of the Groundlings. Could stand to be sourced though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warm Blankets Orphan Care International
- Warm Blankets Orphan Care International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Was CSD'd, notability is uncertain. Keilana 01:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really know if this is a necessary article. I know there has been some discussion lately about orphans/foreign adoptions (how it has become sort of an industry in which women are paid to have babies that are in turn sold to naive Americans). Many people think that foreign orphan adoptions help, but 99+% of orphans left behind with no one to care for them. That's where this organization steps in. I could eventually add more info about human trafficking or foreign adoption if it would help it to be a worth while article. Or, just delete it, and I could maybe write an article just on foreign adoptions down the road. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBethany (talk • contribs) — MissBethany (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Tentative delete. The only references provided either originate from the subject organization, or simply prove that it exists. If verifiable third-party citations can be provided showing that this organization has achieved notability, I'd willingly switch to "keep." --Russ (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. This certainly needs much work, but the copyright violation is not demonstrated and we do not delete for lack of sources. We add sources. Bduke (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Etruscan coins
- Etruscan coins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This appears to be an original research piece on Etruscan coinage, or a copy vio. I'll note the manuscript style inline citations, and the fact it was uploaded at one entire piece of prose by the creator. Also, the first version, prior to some wikifying, had the author at the end listed as "Italo Vecchi" Therefore, I submit this is either the original research of "Italo Vecchi" or its a copy vio of some existing piece.
Updated This appears to be from the forethcoming work "Coinage of Etruria and Umbria. Parte 1.The coinage of the Rasna: the gold, silver, and bronze coinages from the mints of Cosa, Luca (?),Pisae (?),Populonia,"Velsnani",Vetulonia,Vulci and Uncertain Mints from V century to III century BC" by Italo Vecchi here http://www.edizioniennerre.it/ENcatcerca.php . I used his name and followed it to this website which he references in the submitted article. Granted if its unpublished, we can't be sure its a copyright, but I do think its still inappropriate for inclusion on the basis of copy right issues and/or original research (none of the many parenthetical citations are completed).
- Comment Well, this brings some more (but not much :-/ ) clarity to the whole affair. I checked the contributions of the main author of the article as well, and it does appear to be an exerpt of his own book, and thus though not necessarily a copyvio, since he retains copyright to his own text; the problem remains of it being awfully close to spamming his own book, and kind of problematic for that reason. I suppose the test of the pudding would be on what the reaction to wikification and editing of the article would be... <deep gulp> -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well pulling this random line out of "The Etruscans were not frightened to experiment, as is illustrated by the case of an extraordinary struck bronze series with incuse reverses, presumably from Populonia and based on a hundred units (or centesimal system) which may correspond to the struck Roman sexantal as, theoretically of about 54 grams." the amount of original, unsourced research in that one statement makes that statement almost unsalvagable to me. I mean in theory we could wikify all this citations, but they'd still be his interpretation of them, which would be OR to me. Not seeing how this is saveable, other than to stubbify it. talk) 10:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well pulling this random line out of "The Etruscans were not frightened to experiment, as is illustrated by the case of an extraordinary struck bronze series with incuse reverses, presumably from Populonia and based on a hundred units (or centesimal system) which may correspond to the struck Roman sexantal as, theoretically of about 54 grams." the amount of original, unsourced research in that one statement makes that statement almost unsalvagable to me. I mean in theory we could wikify all this citations, but they'd still be his interpretation of them, which would be OR to me. Not seeing how this is saveable, other than to stubbify it.
- Comment. I was invited to this AfD as editor of the article, but my only contribution was the removal of a speedy tag for copyvio of an unspecified URL, which I couldn't find myself. If the article is to be deleted as copyvio, its source needs to be found. The mere presence of a signature is by no means an indication of a copyvio. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't citations mean it is not original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be judged case by case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let me rephrase that. Aren't citations evidence against a presumptive judgement of original research? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be judged case by case. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the text, as it is now, is very likely copied from somewhere and unencyclopedical in style. I wonder whether it would of any use for anyone trying work on the article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I suspect when you say unsourced, you mean to say unattributed. Those are two entirely different things. Not that Unattributed is better. Just tell us what text tehy are plagirizing, and we will all be much more satisfied. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticles should not be deleted for copyright violation based on suspicion and belief. If anything more substantial than the present innuendo is produced this vote is of course inapplicable, but I can only make a judgment on what has actually been presented. From what I can actually observe, this seems to be acceptable and even valuable material that simply needs wikification. deranged bulbasaur 16:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- (Deleted by Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- I think the point you may be missing here is, if we knew what it was supposed to be a word for word copy of, we could check if it really was such and it could just be zapped... needs to be specified a copy of which text though, before taht. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making unverified allegations of illegal activity against a living person. This isn't mainspace, but what you're doing cuts pretty close to libel. I still don't see any actual evidence. You may well be right, but your matter of fact accusations in absence of proof are so highly inappropriate that I considered deleting your post. deranged bulbasaur 22:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. I've gone ahead and deleted the posts myself, particularly in light of Mbisanz's research. By definition, one can't plagiarize himself; if the author of the article took someone else's work, word-for-word, that would be a different matter, of course. If this is drawn from something that is copyrighted, however, the copyright still lies with the publisher. I agree with you, however, that we have to be careful when we voice our opinions that something is a copyvio or a hoax. Without an explanation of what the sources are, I still say delete. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete in light of elaborated circumstances. For most journals, the transfer of copyright is contingent on the actual publication of the material and would not occur before then. So, if this is submitted to wikipedia first, it is licensed under the GFDL by the author. He can then transfer the copyright, but the new copyright holder would still have to honor the license because it cannot be terminated. However, this situation is iffy enough that it would be best to err on the side of caution and delete. deranged bulbasaur 20:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and avoid copyright paranoia. We delete copyvio when we know what is being copied. The website give the title of an article, which may or may not have been published--it says forthcoming, but the date given is "04". If this is is from an extensive article, of the sort scholars write, and the sort which by itself would make up what appears to be the entire annual issue of a journal, this will just be the introduction and it would be fair use, meeting all 4 tests. We have no idea of the licensing of this material; journal practices vary very widely. The author may have kept the copyright and given the publisher merely a license to publish it. Arrangements vary. I see no attempt on the talk page to ask him aside from our conventional notice. DGG (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was a fairuse intro from a book, wouldn't that still be Original Research or at least be something that should go to wikisource? MBisanz 05:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was a fairuse intro from a book, wouldn't that still be Original Research or at least be something that should go to wikisource?
- Delete unless the article is stubbified by an editor (and anyone can do this as they please under the guidelines) removes all material that is unverified and/or uncited.--VS talk 22:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] XpoLog Center
Software of questionable notability. The article invites the reader to google its subject. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 13:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vosquenon notable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that it is notable. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete under Sociableblog.com
nonnotable website Choosing123 (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as short article lacking the context that would allow us to identify the subject. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vanderbilt, the NetherlandsAfDs for this article:
Again this is not notable and try to see it this time Knorkington's (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] This has been relisted in accordance with a DRV decision. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:42, 12/25/2007
The result was delete. Kurykh 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of historical figures in Civilization IV
This article was deleted in the prod process, the reason was that the content - list of characters - is not encyclopedic. However, several users later expressed an opinion that the list is in fact useful and should be restored. So I am putting it here to generate a broader consensus. Thank you for attention. Tone 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to keep the article.
|
WP:BLP concerns are clear and only one user did not opt to delete entirely". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ). No further edits should be made to this page. |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Joneses
Unsourced Article with no real claim to notability neonwhite user page talk 03:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essay, unsourced, no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - unless proper citations from reliable sources can substantiate the many claims in the article, in which case I might review the position. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Not a good article, but this may (I'm not sure) actually be a notable rock band and I would encourage cleanup and the addition of citations if it's not a hoax.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I couldn't find any sources to backup any of the claims made in the article that might make them notable. The only thing that comes up at discogs is this band which is clearly not the same band the article is about. As far as i can see they appear to have only release a handful of EPs on small indie labels. In my opinion there will always be a problem sourcing this article. --neonwhite user page talk 19:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria Toensing
- Victoria Toensing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article which is a biography of a living person; violates
- The article also makes statements about other living persons without giving source citations, violating talk) 02:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article also makes statements about other living persons without giving source citations, violating
- Article contains a lot of salient information about an influential individual. Should be kept if possible. Currently has two sources listed. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep may be notable. JJL (talk) 04:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The footnotes show two reliable, independent sources that give substantial coverage to the subject, and that meets talk) 03:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [replying to the above comments: :::Though the subject is "notable" and "noteworthy", the article makes many unsourced statements, which is a violation of talk) 04:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [replying to the above comments: :::Though the subject is "notable" and "noteworthy", the article makes many unsourced statements, which is a violation of
- Again, removing material that has been unsourced is the answer to WP:BLP problems, not article deletion. Feel free to make it a stub. Editors who have an interest in the subject can then rebuild it. The subject is clearly Wikipedia-worthy. talk) 17:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, removing material that has been unsourced is the answer to WP:BLP problems, not article deletion. Feel free to make it a stub. Editors who have an interest in the subject can then rebuild it. The subject is clearly Wikipedia-worthy.
- Keep: should be OK now, please review - links added; uncited paragraph regarding law rv. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep does seem ok now, sufficient sources for notable participation in multiple events. DGG (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridgeheads
- The Bridgeheads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Music group does not appear to meet
- Delete, fails ]
- Delete per NawlinWiki.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burying Brian
- Burying Brian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This is an article about a TV series still in production (
- Comment - it looks like the copyvio of http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page//1414342 —72.75.72.63 (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page shouldn't be deleted because the show is now in pre production and will be coming to tv screens in new zealand in the next few months.My suggestion is that a note be attached to the article stating that its an upcoming tv show, i feel this is a fair compromise as on upcoming wrestling pay per view pages a note stating its a upcoming event is on the page and there is never any complaints about them.
I've also re-written the summary, so there shouldn't b any problem with wateva copyvio means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanMorleyRoxs (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - copy-vio. Cheers, Davnel03Sign It, Junior! 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - copy-vio. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Excalibur Alternative
- The Excalibur Alternative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Novel with no assertion of notability, just a short note on who wrote and the full plot. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Apparent
bad-faithhasty nom - nominator made no attempt before PROD to add {{talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Considering you were the editor who de-prodded the article without actually addressing the notability issue noted in the PROD nomination and the one who said "take it to AfD", I find it interesting that you now call this a bad-faith nom. Articles should establish notability when they are created, but in reality, most don't. When I come across such an article, if I feel an article should be able to assert notability, I tag first to give editors a chance. This article, however, has not had any real editing done to it in over six months and seems to be a fan created article about just on of the many millions of novels in the world. All novels are not notable, nor does the notability of the author automatically descend to everything they ever wrote. As a PROD is not an immediate thing, it was sufficient notice for a single novel that I don't think notability could or will be asserted for when it has sat there virtually unchanged since its creation in May. I don't just PROD or AfD articles on a whim. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I said improvable - take to AFD if you must (emphasis added) - I assumed you would anyway, but was just stating the alternative for the record, but I wasn't approving of the AFD. I also posted a notice at talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I said improvable - take to AFD if you must (emphasis added) - I assumed you would anyway, but was just stating the alternative for the record, but I wasn't approving of the AFD. I also posted a notice at
- Considering you were the editor who de-prodded the article without actually addressing the notability issue noted in the PROD nomination and the one who said "take it to AfD", I find it interesting that you now call this a bad-faith nom. Articles should establish notability when they are created, but in reality, most don't. When I come across such an article, if I feel an article should be able to assert notability, I tag first to give editors a chance. This article, however, has not had any real editing done to it in over six months and seems to be a fan created article about just on of the many millions of novels in the world. All novels are not notable, nor does the notability of the author automatically descend to everything they ever wrote. As a PROD is not an immediate thing, it was sufficient notice for a single novel that I don't think notability could or will be asserted for when it has sat there virtually unchanged since its creation in May. I don't just PROD or AfD articles on a whim. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe notability can be asserted, as the book is written by on of the top athors in Science Fiction, and based on a collection of short stories by another well-known writer in the field. Of course, if notability cannot be asserted, then the article should be deleted, whether I think it's notable or not. - talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think this article is salvageable. Give it some time, tag it appropriately, and re-AfD if no improvements are made within a reasonable time frame. --Kweeket Talk 02:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If we delete all articles at this stage, Wikipedia will never get anywhere. Give an article at least a bit of time to build up, for others to contribute their knowledge, before it is swiped away.-Mastrchf91- 03:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sufficient, IMO. Appears to have been improved since nomination? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me only a few moments to pull up some interviews and reception and add those to the article, which only goes to show this AfD is a bit hasty. --Kweeket Talk 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't do that myself as I don't really know what particulars are considered notable for a novel page, and don't have the time right now to get into learning it. Thanks, Kweeket for doing some quick legwork. - talk) 05:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't do that myself as I don't really know what particulars are considered notable for a novel page, and don't have the time right now to get into learning it. Thanks, Kweeket for doing some quick legwork. -
- It took me only a few moments to pull up some interviews and reception and add those to the article, which only goes to show this AfD is a bit hasty. --Kweeket Talk 05:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion (music industry)
- Deletion (music industry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Useless, unsourced, original research
Delete - I'm not sure as to why this article is still here. It has been up since March 2007. Plenty enough time for the original creator to add proper information and expand. In my opinion it should be removed.--Ghostfacebandit (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not useless, it's hardly original research and a perfectly decent article can be written about this. The notion of 'deleted records' may seem arcane to the MP3/Bittorrent generation but like 'out of print' books it's a reasonable concept for Wikipedia. It's not just for the 'original creator' to improve articles, I searched for ten minutes and added four sources myself. Nick mallory (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely worth an article. Certainly not useless. Now well enough sourced.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Dhartung has improved this article no end. Well done. Nick mallory (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AFD is not cleanup, but I have nonetheless made changes to the article that should address the complaints. I had hoped that someone more knowledgeable than I would come along and improve it. Please note for the future that "usefulness" is not a deletion rationale, and original research is distinct from unreferenced material. This was easily verified if the nominator had bothered to take the time (that argument goes both ways, you know). --Dhartung | Talk 18:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, looks good, sourced and informative now.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, informative article with sources. No problems here. Lankiveil (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - The article may not be perfect, but its informative, fairly well written and has several citations to reliable sources. The subject itself will be of interest to anybody curious about the music industry. I see no reason to delete.- Hal Raglan (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-I don't see this page as useless at all, in fact it is very useful and just needs a bit of work. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. No prejudice against suggesting a merge on the article page.CitiCat ♫ 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007)
- Timeline: Philippine Standout Events (2006-2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Make sure everything useful is covered in Timeline of Philippine history, and then delete. Neutralitytalk 01:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is the right place to suggest a ]
- Yes, this is the right place. People suggest merge as an option all the time. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I definitely agree that people suggest merge as an option all the time, the nominator foremost suggests merging information covered in the nominated article into another article. The proper way to do this is by way of {{AfD. I'm not suggesting Neutrality did it the wrong way, it just feels a bit awkward like this, 's all. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 07:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I definitely agree that people suggest merge as an option all the time, the nominator foremost suggests merging information covered in the nominated article into another article. The proper way to do this is by way of {{
- Yes, this is the right place. People suggest merge as an option all the time. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully petition for NON-deletion of this article since most, if not all the events I DID PUT THEREAT, of the events thereat, are fairly neutral and one of the top events in 2007 (backed up by Philippine top papers to wit - Philippine Daily Inquirerother foreign news, and most of them are MOST READ and LANDED IN FRONT PAGES of TOP news papers here, if not on HEADLINES.
as PROOF:
Our top newspaper Philippine Daily Inquirer just yesterday, published the top events of 2007, above.
NOTE: While some persons there who died are not known worldwide, still, they are the most powerful figures here, and/or the parent or next of kin of the most powerful here in Philippines. --Florentino floro (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To further PROVE, that most the EVENTS I added are really STANDOUT and not personal or subjective, I added this -
2006-2007 WikiPedia List of assassinated people (Philippines)
--Florentino floro (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added so many external links to show, prove and expand, that this article is not only neutral, objective, but is landmark and most comprehensive of the BEST, most read, most emailed, most watched Philippines stories on headlines for 2007-2007.
--Florentino floro (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teddy bear effect
- Teddy bear effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article has zero external sources. A Google search showed that the term "teddy bear effect" is not widely used and is used in different ways by different people. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- it's a hoax... unlucky, we've got this same page on it.wiki...my request for deletion was directly done here (usually, ask to an admin, is a quickly way to remove hoax :P...). Bye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 01:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it seemed pretty harmless, so I figured I would send it through the formal deletion process. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah yeah, that's ok too! On it.wiki we started the formal deletion process at first, this is way we are continuing it; but otherwise the page was already "K.O." .... though you are right, anyway this page is harmless, so who cares!?.... ^___^ Bye!:)--DrugoNOT (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as either a hoax or unreferenced neologism; either way, no sources can be found to verify this page's content. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters wish you a Merry Fishmas! • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN neologism. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 02:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is first hit on Google. Talk 02:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I miswrote that. It was the only hit on google that had any content at all. Talk 22:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I miswrote that. It was the only hit on google that had any content at all.
- Delete. Lots of ghits, none of the top ones relevant. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 05:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - It's marked as a stub. If someone can find a reference, consider keeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussielocust (talk • contribs) 06:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The effect is real but this is not the right description for it - the key thing about a teddy bear is that it is a comfort, like a IT but think that's my own coinage. The term silent analyst is used in the context of psychoanalysis. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as original research unless anyone can prove that it is not.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, either under ]
- Delete as per above and Mickey Mouse effect. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, consensus is that with the source quoted by Fbv65edel character is notable. Davewild (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miraz
The article is about a non-notable character from the Chronicles of Narnia series, and as it has no notability or references, is just an in-universe plot repetition that is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very important character in Prince Caspian. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Villian of Prince Caspian, which is probably notable enough. It does need to be rewritten, and needs references, but those don't call for deletion. Anyway, if it is deleted, someone will just recreate it this spring when the Disney movie is released. LloydSommerer (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Malinaccier and Lloyd. Needs help, but no reason to delete. -Mastrchf91- 03:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please focus on the nominating rationale and problems, because anyone can say something is notable,, and what I am asking for is proof of actual real world notability, such as C.S. Lewis describing how he came up with Miraz, or how the character changed in the course of writing the books, stuff like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination suggests that the character is non-notable; in fact, he is the antagonist from one of the books in the series. He is symbolic of a few things: for example, I can cite Companion to Narnia by Paul F. Ford which relates Miraz, the father figure to Caspian, to parentlessness representative in Lewis' early life, as well as tyranny in government. The article of course needs work but there are no grounds to delete. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 04:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, and encourage Fbv to add his third-party source. As someone mentioned, if this is deleted or merged now, it will surely be re-created when the film is released, and I suspect there will probably be more sources to use then. *** Crotalus *** 11:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep or merge at a stretch - notable character in notable book. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fictional character seemingly without notability outside of the Narnia universe. Lankiveil (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No notability shown. Being a main villain for a notable book, doesn't automatically make the character article notable. Relevant content should be in the Prince Caspian article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Prince Caspian. There is nothing in the article to indicate notability outside the book. Pagrashtak 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the reference cited by Fbv is sufficient for real world notability. DGG (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Being a major character of such a major book series makes me believe there's likely to be some real-world information to be said about this character. If, when all said and done, the amount of information can easily live on a list, then do that, but if it is enough for an article, then that's great. In either case, I don't see total deletion as a good solution. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the source found by Fbv65edel is sufficient to demonstrate notability, and contra Judgesurreal777's comment literary analysis of the character is enough. —Quasirandom (speak) 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BjornSocialist Republic
- BjornSocialist Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable micronation located on a rock. Corvus cornixtalk 00:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kannie | talk 00:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - ]
- Speedy Delete per above and Talk 02:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article inlcudes two reliable second party sources. [32] [33] This makes it notable according to ]
- Comment what does this have to do with Talk 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Make that ]
- Redirect, possibly? I don't think it is notable enough to have it's own article, but I do think it could be mentioned in a Swedish one... Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if someone wrote about Lake Immeln in Scania./212.116.91.82 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Few lines once in a newspaper don't make it notable. Do not merge with articles about serious topics please. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- WP:NOT#NEWS does not necessarily prevent articles such as this. --neonwhite user page talk 06:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some sources./212.116.91.82 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, the coverage is clearly trivial.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, some micronations are notable, but this one isn't. A flip article in the "Oddly Enough" column doesn't qualify as non-trivial coverage in my view. Lankiveil (talk) 12:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete utterly non-notable. Making the "odd news item" section of a newspaper does not a subject notable. -- Mattinbgn\talk 14:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of these articles are trivial, one is the lead item and the other is the times lifestyle column. --neonwhite user page talk 18:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's no less notable than many of the other entries at the WP:WAX and doesn't imply that this should be kept.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not kept, the list ought to be "cleaned up"./212.116.91.82 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Wadia
Speedy declined. I don't think this guy is notable enough for an article. If we had an article on every CEO on Earth, think how many warticles we'd have.
- Delete as nom than I wish you healthy and happy holidays. 00:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I was the one who nominated this article for speedy delete. Article is very badly written. --Kannie | talk 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please bear these points in mind: Jim Wadia was Arthur Andersen's CEO, not just any company. Next, his bio is referenced in the page for Arthur Andersen, but wasn't created. That's how I came to create the page. As for the quality of writing, the writing itself I think is OK. It's just the matter which has to be augmented. I am adding, for example, the strange exit from the top position he held. It's all quite interesting, if you let the article be for a while :) Nshuks7 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable just for being a famous persons CEO. Happy Holidays!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Arthur Anderson is a very notable company, see Enron scandal... JACOPLANE • 2007-12-25 00:57
- Comment If he left before Enron I don't see why he would be notable. Talk 02:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If he left before Enron I don't see why he would be notable.
- Comment I declined the speedy, as while any random CEO is not notable, I would say being that of one of the big five accounting firms in the US would put a person over. This article needs serious improvement however. I've asked the creator to spend the five days looking for ways to make this article better. Resolute 01:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep CEO of two major companies and was part of a major deal between the two. As mentioned above article needs real work. Talk 02:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also COO of a major international law firm: Linklaters. Nshuks7 (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: needs improvement, but subject matter is fine. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because the article is badly written doesn't mean it should be deleted. Subject matter is notable, as stated above. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and strongly recommend the use of a search engine when considering nominating articles based on non-notability. First non-American CEO of Arthur Andersen and the CEO during the acrimonious split of Andersen Consulting is notable [34] even if you don't think all CEOs of Big Six accounting firms are notable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, CEO for some time of one of the largest financial companies in the world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep first, as CEO of a firm as important as Arthur Andersen he is certainly notable. But even if we had articles on the CEO of every notable company, we could perfectly well handle it. Not paper. DGG (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus between merging and keeping defaulting to Keep, very little support for deleting article, a consensus on whether a merge is appropriate should be formed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internets
no new sources in over a year, no sources younger than the start of Bush's second term. In short,
]- Merge to Talk 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a constant influx of new sources is not a requirement for demonstrating notability. Nominator never brought up issues of notability on article's talk page before. An impulsive and frivolous AfD. Robert K S (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Bushism per Bjweeks. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - discussions of the word "internets" may not be very frequent after 2004, but the word itself is still used. For instance, Jon Stewart used it at least once in this spirit on The Daily Show in 2006, but as I don't really know what episode it was or anything (beyond "the one with the bit about Ted Stevens and online gambling"), I can't properly source it. I currently don't really have any opinion on this article, though... the notability of slang terms like this is always difficult to judge. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: WP:N#TEMP agrees with Robert K S. Otherwise, merge to Bushism and redirect to Internet (disambiguation), which lists other meanings of the plural. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to ]
- Merge and redirect to Bushism Doc Strange (talk) 22:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak merge and redirect to Bushism, or just keep per the multiple reliable non-trivial published sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this where it is. This isn't the sort of topic that needs new sources, and I don't see how a merge to Bushism would improve that article. Gimmetrow 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources document the genesis of the new definition of the word internets. There's no reason why new sources would be needed. It's continued usage is more than enough reason to keep the article. Charles (Kznf) (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, multiple non-trivial sources are present. Lankiveil (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to ]
- Modified my opinion following Robert K S' comments below. I don't think we should _delete_ the article, leaving "Internets" red-linked. However, it would appear (from the cited sources in the article, at least), that this particular malapropism is only associated with Bush, and does not appear to stand on any firmer footing of notability. It may be the case that there's no useful content from this article that should be added to Bushism, in which case a simple redirect would be the most appropriate solution. Tevildo (talk) 09:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's absurd to think that a merge with Bushism would do a favor to either article. Bushism already mentions "Internets" to the extent that it needs to get the idea across; contribution of additional material to that article merged in from Internets would give undue weight to one Bushism in that article. For the sake of this AfD let's stick with the options of keep or delete. Either the article has "lost notability" by not having kept in step with some mythical perpetual burden of re-proof with additional sources as the nominator contends, or it has shown its notability and can stay. Robert K S (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Robert says better what I tried to say above. I looked at the "Bushism" article and tried to imagine how the "Internets" content could possibly be merged. I don't see how a simple copy-paste would work, and anything else would involve a substantial editing to avoid making the Bushism article worse. Gimmetrow 05:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some citations to the article that attest the term is in frequent and persistent use. Since the rationale for the nomination--that no new sources have been added for some time--has been invalidated, it's time for a speedy closure on this AfD. Robert K S (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The original rational for the deletion of the article on bus ministries was shown to be mistaken, yet the deletion was nonetheless effected on other grounds. —SlamDiego←T 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article has no hope of salvation. It is well-established that official transcripts sometimes do not match actual remarks. In this case, the transcriber could not possibly tell whether Bush said “internets” (which would be technically correct) or “Internets” (which would indeed be incorrect). Repeated attempts to get this article to reflect the underlying ambiguity have been consistently thwarted by those who wish it to be a hit piece. —SlamDiego←T 23:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I find rather silly the idea that Bush would have or could have intentionally used an arcane term, and while I think such an idea is contraindicated by the Bush-Gore debate example, it doesn't matter what Bush's intentions were. The usage became a catch phrase, one that has been thoroughly sourced, and that's what the article is about. There's nothing NNPOV or "hit-piece"-y about the article. Robert K S (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the term “the Internet” arose non-arbitrarily from “internet”, and there is nothing silly or particularly arbitrary in the original term, there is nothing “silly” in the thought that Bush would infer the original term and notion from hearing /ˈɪntɚˌnɛt/. If the article did not insist that Bush said “Internets” (rather than “internets”), then it would not be a hit piece; but that insistence has been maintained in spite of repeated attempts to instead have the article describe the origin in terms of verifiable fact (including reports of surmise identified as surmise). —SlamDiego←T 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard for me to make a lot of sense of the above. Regardless of whether Bush said the obtusely comical "Internets" or the abstrusely technical "internets", he used a term that is either original or uncommon, which is what lent it catch phrase cachet. The catch phrase is now in constant and common use, and its rise to such use is documented in the article, first with the Internet and news media reaction, then with the SNL parody, then with the viral repetition of the clip, followed finally by its use as a blog tag across the Web. If someone wants to know where the term came from, this article answers the question, with verifiable sources, in an encyclopedic tone, and from a neutral point of view. Given all this, it's difficult to see grounds for the article's deletion. Robert K S (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated: The article has no hope of being written in an appropriately scholarly manner rather than as hit piece. Not because no one could write a scholarly article, but because Wikipedia is demonstrably unable to hold in check those who will rewrite it into a hit piece every time that it is made scholarly. It is intellectually easy to see that we cannot know whether Bush said “Internets” or “internets”, so if anyone finds it hard to see/admit the point, we should look to an explanation other than intellectual challenge. Likewise, it is intellectually easy to understand my claim that the history of the article shows it being kept corrupt. —SlamDiego←T 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This business about "holding people in check" isn't supported by the article's edit history. It has been stable for many months. As above, the point isn't whether Bush said "Internets" or "internets"--the point is that his usage of a term became a catch phrase. If the article were "corrupt" you might have been able to get a single other editor to agree with the basis for your complaint, but that seems not to have happened. Robert K S (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At one time, there were multiple editors contesting the claim of that article. It's stable because the non-POV-pushers gave up on it; “stable” and “scholarly” aren't the same thing. And the point shouldn't be whether Bush did or did not really say “Internets” rather than “internets”, but the claim that he did has proved irresistable for a faction of POV-pushers, who have driven away everyone else. The article is hopeless. —SlamDiego←T 06:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find some language that appeared to be judgmental about whether Bush was making an error or not. I removed it in a single edit in order to address your concerns. [35] As to whether the article should use the capitalized version of the word, would you consent to allow the version used in the official transcripts of the debates, in which the word is capitalized, with a footnote of explanation explaining that such is the case? Robert K S (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that there is any real issue over whether it was an apparent gaffe; it was certainly an apparent gaffe, regardless of whether it were a genuine gaffe. The issue is over whether it is evident that he said “Internets” rather than “internets”. A scholarly article could say that he say one or ther other, with the common presumption being that he said the former. Again, we know that official transcripts are not always accurate, and the transcriber in this case had no way of distinguishing which was said. The body of the article could legitimately say something such as “Bush used the word ‘Internets’ or ‘internets’” (with the footnote). But the problems is that it used to note the ambiguity (and to explain that Bush's expression might not have been as ignorant as it seemed), and then POV-pushers rewrote it to make it seem certain that he'd said “Internets”. There's little reason to expect that that sad history won't repeat itself. —SlamDiego←T 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really all discussion better suited to the talk page, but I don't think the article needs to go into the whole debate about which usage Bush was using. It's enough to say that he used an uncommon pluralization, and to note that the transcript capitalizes it. To go into a whole explanation--"he may have said this, he may have said that"--that would be original research. Anyway, the point being, the article isn't "hopeless" and as it stands now, there can be no legitimate complaint that it espouses one POV or another. Robert K S (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it should go into a “whole debate”, if it baldly claims that he said one when actually he may have said the other, then it's pushing a POV; and avoiding a “whole debate” is certainly no excuse for POV-pushing. Again, the fact that editors have successfully refused to keep it NPOV shows that Wikipedia is better-off without it. —SlamDiego←T 07:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a statement in the article you find unfactual? Robert K S (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sentences which say “Bush used the word ‘Internets’” treat the surmise that he said “Internets” (rather than “internets”) as if it is a brute fact. It would be trivial to avoid such treatment (as by inserting “or ‘internets’” in those sentences), and various versions have done just that, only to be quickly editted back to POV-pushing. Time to cast the Precioussssss into Mt Doom. —SlamDiego←T 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperbolic comparisons of this article to dearly-held evil artifacts aside, I think you're pulling at straws here. Bush said a word pronounced "Internets" whether that's rendered with a capital letter or not. The article must render it one way or another: to render it both ways, without the elaborate explanation of the semantic difference between the two up front, would only be confusing to the new reader; moreover, unless such a semantic argument could be attributed, it would constitute original research. Such an explanation appearing in the lead would furthermore place undue weight on a controversy insignificant to the article topic. (The article is about the catch phrase and its history, and not primarily about Bush or politics.) An especially bad way of resolving this would be including an in-text modification of quoted material. The transcript rendered the word capitalized, so it would seem th natural choice to do so in the article as well. If you can improve the footnote I provided so that it would satisfy your compunction, you are welcome to do so, but there's simply no basis for deletion in any of what you've put forth. Robert K S (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is calling for lengthy explanations nor for the incorporation of original research; I called for a few simple changes, clearly described. (Back when I was still trying to save that article, every simple correction that I made was reverted by POV-pushers; I'm done with trying.) You keep trying to excuse what amounts to POV-pushing as-if it is an acceptable cost of simplification, when the degree of simplification accomplished is negligible. That illustrates my initial point here: The article is foredoomed to be maintained as a hit piece, and therefore is best deleted. —SlamDiego←T 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You go on lamenting the article's "foredoomed" status, and I'll go on trying to find reasonable ways to appease your only partially valid scruples. You're not talking to a POV-pusher now. You're talking to somebody who wants a good article, one that necessarily also excludes the OR semantic argument you haven't been able to source. Robert K S (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsourceable claim here is yours: that Bush said “Internets” rather than “internets”; that cannot be genuinely sourced, because no one hear the difference, and Bush wasn't reading from a prepared remarks (which surely would not have had “Internets” anyway). The article should instead indicate that he said one of the two, and that he was widely presumed to have said the former. You struggle here and elsewhere to have the article go beyond the available facts. Perhaps you can explain how this is not pushing a POV. The article is just never going to be right, because of such commitments. —SlamDiego←T 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not POV whether he said "Internets" or "internets" because it doesn't matter how you capitalize it--it was an uncommon pluralization, it spawned a catch phrase, and that's the article's about. At present the article makes no judgment about whether what Bush said was "stupid" or "smart", and to give undue weight to an unsourced OR explanation about the semantic difference would imply such a judgment. This argument is a bit like one that argues which gender pronoun should be used to describe God in an article about Abrahamic faiths. No matter which gender is decided to be used, it doesn't give champions of the other gender (or both genders, or inclusion of some explanation about the differences between them) grounds for article deletion. Robert K S (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It plainly does matter — you've already admitted that in the one case Bush were comically obtuse, while in the other he were merely using an abstruse term. And your commitment to the one rather than to the other demonstrates that it matters to you. If the article should further explain the distinction, it is easy to find a source (Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum or TCP-IP Digest v 1 #10, for examples). And if Wikipedia found that it could not keep articles on Abrahamic faiths from being hit pieces then it would probably walk away from them, as it ought to walk away from this article. —SlamDiego←T 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we use one over the other, it's because that's the version that's sourceable. If we use both versions, we have to explain why, what the difference is, why it matters... in short, repeat the talk page and this thread in the article, placing undue weight on a controversy that is unsourceable and irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is the term's history and usage as a catch phrase. I think we've both said as much as we're going to on this, so I'll bow out now. Robert K S (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As repeatedly previously explained, the ‘I’ version is not sourceable. What the official transcript sources is no more than that the transcriber guessed an ‘I’ (rather than an ‘i’) from Bush's /ɪ/. Again, you want to go beyond the available facts, to present Bush as acting comically obtuse, claiming that presenting surmise as plain fact is justified because it simplifies the article. If, for whatever reason, it isn't practical to keep the article perfectly honest, then it should be deleted. —SlamDiego←T 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit history on the article does not reflect your characterization. I have tried to satisfy you without making the article convoluted with a irrelevant controversy, but you won't work toward compromise, insisting instead on an unwarranted deletion. Robert K S (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Great: You want to have your
cakedeparture andeat itpersist too.) Here and before, I suggested very simple changes that would keep the article perfectly honest. Your refernces to convolution and what-not are a red herring. Every one of your ostensible compromises amounts to maintaining the unsubstantiatable claim that Bush actually said “Internets” (rather than “internets”). Your commitment illustrates how the article cannot be rescued. —SlamDiego←T 04:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Great: You want to have your
- My edit history on the article does not reflect your characterization. I have tried to satisfy you without making the article convoluted with a irrelevant controversy, but you won't work toward compromise, insisting instead on an unwarranted deletion. Robert K S (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As repeatedly previously explained, the ‘I’ version is not sourceable. What the official transcript sources is no more than that the transcriber guessed an ‘I’ (rather than an ‘i’) from Bush's /ɪ/. Again, you want to go beyond the available facts, to present Bush as acting comically obtuse, claiming that presenting surmise as plain fact is justified because it simplifies the article. If, for whatever reason, it isn't practical to keep the article perfectly honest, then it should be deleted. —SlamDiego←T 03:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we use one over the other, it's because that's the version that's sourceable. If we use both versions, we have to explain why, what the difference is, why it matters... in short, repeat the talk page and this thread in the article, placing undue weight on a controversy that is unsourceable and irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is the term's history and usage as a catch phrase. I think we've both said as much as we're going to on this, so I'll bow out now. Robert K S (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It plainly does matter — you've already admitted that in the one case Bush were comically obtuse, while in the other he were merely using an abstruse term. And your commitment to the one rather than to the other demonstrates that it matters to you. If the article should further explain the distinction, it is easy to find a source (Computer Networks by Andrew S. Tanenbaum or TCP-IP Digest v 1 #10, for examples). And if Wikipedia found that it could not keep articles on Abrahamic faiths from being hit pieces then it would probably walk away from them, as it ought to walk away from this article. —SlamDiego←T 02:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not POV whether he said "Internets" or "internets" because it doesn't matter how you capitalize it--it was an uncommon pluralization, it spawned a catch phrase, and that's the article's about. At present the article makes no judgment about whether what Bush said was "stupid" or "smart", and to give undue weight to an unsourced OR explanation about the semantic difference would imply such a judgment. This argument is a bit like one that argues which gender pronoun should be used to describe God in an article about Abrahamic faiths. No matter which gender is decided to be used, it doesn't give champions of the other gender (or both genders, or inclusion of some explanation about the differences between them) grounds for article deletion. Robert K S (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The unsourceable claim here is yours: that Bush said “Internets” rather than “internets”; that cannot be genuinely sourced, because no one hear the difference, and Bush wasn't reading from a prepared remarks (which surely would not have had “Internets” anyway). The article should instead indicate that he said one of the two, and that he was widely presumed to have said the former. You struggle here and elsewhere to have the article go beyond the available facts. Perhaps you can explain how this is not pushing a POV. The article is just never going to be right, because of such commitments. —SlamDiego←T 01:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You go on lamenting the article's "foredoomed" status, and I'll go on trying to find reasonable ways to appease your only partially valid scruples. You're not talking to a POV-pusher now. You're talking to somebody who wants a good article, one that necessarily also excludes the OR semantic argument you haven't been able to source. Robert K S (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is calling for lengthy explanations nor for the incorporation of original research; I called for a few simple changes, clearly described. (Back when I was still trying to save that article, every simple correction that I made was reverted by POV-pushers; I'm done with trying.) You keep trying to excuse what amounts to POV-pushing as-if it is an acceptable cost of simplification, when the degree of simplification accomplished is negligible. That illustrates my initial point here: The article is foredoomed to be maintained as a hit piece, and therefore is best deleted. —SlamDiego←T 23:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperbolic comparisons of this article to dearly-held evil artifacts aside, I think you're pulling at straws here. Bush said a word pronounced "Internets" whether that's rendered with a capital letter or not. The article must render it one way or another: to render it both ways, without the elaborate explanation of the semantic difference between the two up front, would only be confusing to the new reader; moreover, unless such a semantic argument could be attributed, it would constitute original research. Such an explanation appearing in the lead would furthermore place undue weight on a controversy insignificant to the article topic. (The article is about the catch phrase and its history, and not primarily about Bush or politics.) An especially bad way of resolving this would be including an in-text modification of quoted material. The transcript rendered the word capitalized, so it would seem th natural choice to do so in the article as well. If you can improve the footnote I provided so that it would satisfy your compunction, you are welcome to do so, but there's simply no basis for deletion in any of what you've put forth. Robert K S (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Both sentences which say “Bush used the word ‘Internets’” treat the surmise that he said “Internets” (rather than “internets”) as if it is a brute fact. It would be trivial to avoid such treatment (as by inserting “or ‘internets’” in those sentences), and various versions have done just that, only to be quickly editted back to POV-pushing. Time to cast the Precioussssss into Mt Doom. —SlamDiego←T 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to a statement in the article you find unfactual? Robert K S (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it should go into a “whole debate”, if it baldly claims that he said one when actually he may have said the other, then it's pushing a POV; and avoiding a “whole debate” is certainly no excuse for POV-pushing. Again, the fact that editors have successfully refused to keep it NPOV shows that Wikipedia is better-off without it. —SlamDiego←T 07:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is really all discussion better suited to the talk page, but I don't think the article needs to go into the whole debate about which usage Bush was using. It's enough to say that he used an uncommon pluralization, and to note that the transcript capitalizes it. To go into a whole explanation--"he may have said this, he may have said that"--that would be original research. Anyway, the point being, the article isn't "hopeless" and as it stands now, there can be no legitimate complaint that it espouses one POV or another. Robert K S (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that there is any real issue over whether it was an apparent gaffe; it was certainly an apparent gaffe, regardless of whether it were a genuine gaffe. The issue is over whether it is evident that he said “Internets” rather than “internets”. A scholarly article could say that he say one or ther other, with the common presumption being that he said the former. Again, we know that official transcripts are not always accurate, and the transcriber in this case had no way of distinguishing which was said. The body of the article could legitimately say something such as “Bush used the word ‘Internets’ or ‘internets’” (with the footnote). But the problems is that it used to note the ambiguity (and to explain that Bush's expression might not have been as ignorant as it seemed), and then POV-pushers rewrote it to make it seem certain that he'd said “Internets”. There's little reason to expect that that sad history won't repeat itself. —SlamDiego←T 07:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find some language that appeared to be judgmental about whether Bush was making an error or not. I removed it in a single edit in order to address your concerns. [35] As to whether the article should use the capitalized version of the word, would you consent to allow the version used in the official transcripts of the debates, in which the word is capitalized, with a footnote of explanation explaining that such is the case? Robert K S (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At one time, there were multiple editors contesting the claim of that article. It's stable because the non-POV-pushers gave up on it; “stable” and “scholarly” aren't the same thing. And the point shouldn't be whether Bush did or did not really say “Internets” rather than “internets”, but the claim that he did has proved irresistable for a faction of POV-pushers, who have driven away everyone else. The article is hopeless. —SlamDiego←T 06:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This business about "holding people in check" isn't supported by the article's edit history. It has been stable for many months. As above, the point isn't whether Bush said "Internets" or "internets"--the point is that his usage of a term became a catch phrase. If the article were "corrupt" you might have been able to get a single other editor to agree with the basis for your complaint, but that seems not to have happened. Robert K S (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As already stated: The article has no hope of being written in an appropriately scholarly manner rather than as hit piece. Not because no one could write a scholarly article, but because Wikipedia is demonstrably unable to hold in check those who will rewrite it into a hit piece every time that it is made scholarly. It is intellectually easy to see that we cannot know whether Bush said “Internets” or “internets”, so if anyone finds it hard to see/admit the point, we should look to an explanation other than intellectual challenge. Likewise, it is intellectually easy to understand my claim that the history of the article shows it being kept corrupt. —SlamDiego←T 05:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard for me to make a lot of sense of the above. Regardless of whether Bush said the obtusely comical "Internets" or the abstrusely technical "internets", he used a term that is either original or uncommon, which is what lent it catch phrase cachet. The catch phrase is now in constant and common use, and its rise to such use is documented in the article, first with the Internet and news media reaction, then with the SNL parody, then with the viral repetition of the clip, followed finally by its use as a blog tag across the Web. If someone wants to know where the term came from, this article answers the question, with verifiable sources, in an encyclopedic tone, and from a neutral point of view. Given all this, it's difficult to see grounds for the article's deletion. Robert K S (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the term “the Internet” arose non-arbitrarily from “internet”, and there is nothing silly or particularly arbitrary in the original term, there is nothing “silly” in the thought that Bush would infer the original term and notion from hearing /ˈɪntɚˌnɛt/. If the article did not insist that Bush said “Internets” (rather than “internets”), then it would not be a hit piece; but that insistence has been maintained in spite of repeated attempts to instead have the article describe the origin in terms of verifiable fact (including reports of surmise identified as surmise). —SlamDiego←T 00:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I find rather silly the idea that Bush would have or could have intentionally used an arcane term, and while I think such an idea is contraindicated by the Bush-Gore debate example, it doesn't matter what Bush's intentions were. The usage became a catch phrase, one that has been thoroughly sourced, and that's what the article is about. There's nothing NNPOV or "hit-piece"-y about the article. Robert K S (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Bushism and redirect. --Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -
Series of tubes
- Series of tubes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)
This article describes a blunder in a political speech; such blunders occur frequently and are not notable. If "series of tubes" catches on as a neologism, this page should be moved to Wiktionary. Pcu123456789 19:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator says Move to Wiktionary or delete. -Pcu123456789 19:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has already caught on. bogdan 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — this particular speech blunder is highly notable, as evidenced by the news reactions to it. Look at all the new stories. Dicklyon 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable blunder ::mikmt 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per comments (by me and others) at Talk:Series of tubes. As both the article and talk page demonstrate, it has certainly caught on, and has been discussed in major media outlets (even the Wikipedia article on series of tubes has been discussed in mainstream media, a newspaper article if memory serves). I fail to see why Wiktionary is a more appropriate venue. Finally, I see little in Wikipedia policy and guidelines that would lend credit to a "delete" argument. The only argument seemingly put forward for deletion in the nomination is a general "notability" argument (without reference to any specific policy or guideline either on notability or something else). This is when the concept of notability (as a general, amorphous, undefined concept) is at its most dangerous. Let's work on not overusing notability as a ground for deletion. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without this article, archaeologists of 2010 will be unable to decipher blag posts from 2007. Like the Time Cube, "series of tubes" represents a failure of the human mind which has transcended its origins, becoming a substitute for wit in our simulacrum of society. Anville 20:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge some vastly reduced version to Ted Stevens. No one will care in 5 years, assuming they do now. Recury 20:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. - You could apply the same deletion reason to Internets. It's already become a catchphrase amongst the Internet community, and various media outlets have talked about it. bCube(talk,contribs); 21:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, and that's already been attempted. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could apply the same deletion reason to those articles, couldn't you? That isn't a very good reason to keep this article, though. Why not vote delete instead to counter systemic bias and recentism? Recury 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This has already gained notability outside the 'net, as evidenced in the article itself. And not just on The Daily Show. -- Kesh 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is a very notable phrase, and has been mentioned everywhere. Jayden54 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can we at least pretend to be dealing with the real world? This is not a notable phrase, even if the random Internet junkies on some message board like to toss it about. I remember seeing this on the Daily Show and the Tonight Show, but big deal - it's a new story of passing interest. No need for it to be on WikiNews as it's not news anymore, so time for it to be gone. Then again, I would have expressed an opinion in favor of deleting "You forgot Poland" too, so what do I know? GassyGuy 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with bCube above. This is notable content and should be kept. If you're going to delete this, keep it a standard and remove ALL articles such as Internets, You Forgot Poland, Bushisms, Interweb, Leet, Jeff K, Internet meme (and all related subpages), and pretty much any article with the suffix _(Colloquialism).--Super Jamie 01:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Collarly, if this is for deletion, you can also remove all Internet Phenomena articles. Group X and The Tron Guy are just as important as Series Of Tubes.--Super Jamie 03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't work that way; see ]
- Collarly, if this is for deletion, you can also remove all
- Move to Wiktionary and delete per nom. Anomo 10:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This had lots of media coverage and is notable. VegaDark 21:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a bad faith nom from a believer of the "Internet is a dumptruck" school of thought. No, but seriously. This had tons of coverage in the mainstream media AND became an Internet meme of sorts. Definitely notable. I don't see how WP:NEO applies to this particular subject. --- RockMFR 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It had coverage in the mainstream media because it was an odd comparison. That's what made it news of a lighter variety. That's what would have made it a lovely topic for Wikinews back when it occurred. If this is not in her to document it as a term which folks on the Internet use, then it is being used as the name of a non-notable political speech. Either way, I'm not sure what qualifies it as an encyclopaedic topic. GassyGuy 08:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep extraordinary amount of coverage. - crztalk 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely notable and the page is commonly cited. - Mattva01 01:52 , 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I am a new user who genuinely learned more about net neutrality through the Wikipedia article. I wanted to learn more - that is why I looked it up on Wikipedia - and "series of tubes" was the phrase I remembered off the top of my head. I hope this article doesn't disappear just because it is connected to a political figure. cpwb2 01:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You too. Recury 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, umm, this isn't worth potentially getting in trouble over, as consensus seems to be leaning heavily toward keep at the moment. Perhaps you could reconsider casting your vote(s). · j e r s y k o talk · 22:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, umm, this isn't worth potentially
- You too. Recury 21:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has become an internet meme, akin to ]
- Keep. There are many articles of this nature (Internet slang, semi-common terms) on Wikipedia, and it is an article that helps to showcase a view on things, and a point in time of our own history, however small it may be. Slokunshialgo 06:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I think I smell WP:SNOW. De facto, it's a breakout of content too large to fit into the Ted Stevens or Net neutrality articles. Its notability is inextricably linked to the notability of the speaker and the issue he was speaking about. --Ssbohio 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very notable and relevant to the politics of this issue. --hello,gadren 05:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A microcosm of everything wrong with Wikipedia. Article consists mostly of a bunch of unmemorable quotes from The Daily Show and unenlightening cites to obscure blogs. A paragraph in the Ted Stevens article would have worked just fine. Thunderbunny 20:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Too notable to get rid of. --Piemanmoo 22:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I came here looking to quote the text. It was the first place I came, and I've used this page on occasions to introduce people to the blunder... I would be very disappointed if it went like so many of my other much-loved articles. User:FarQPwnsME 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Informative article, subject has been and continues to be cited in the media. - Minkus 07:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notabel and humerous blunder by the man who understands the internet. Cburnett 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Clarence Thomas. Wizardman 03:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High-tech lynching
- )
unsourced dicdef Will (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Talk 02:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarence Thomas is a girl? You learn something new every day on wikipedia. Nick mallory (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, wrong judge. *looks around nervously* Talk 22:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, wrong judge. *looks around nervously*
- Clarence Thomas is a girl? You learn something new every day on wikipedia. Nick mallory (talk) 05:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Bjweeks. In other news, I didn't know supreme court judges got sex changes... Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per BJ. No indication of any use other than by Clarence Thomas. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per everyone and per such precedents as Cablinasian --> Tiger Woods, for a neologism used only by that person.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above, neologism. Even if coined by a famous person, it obviously hasn't caught on. Lankiveil (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Wizardman 17:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John D. Smith
- John D. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unsourced BLP Will (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep qualifies as an academic. [36], [37], [38], [39]. JJL (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- deletet Is/was Lecturer in Sanskrit at Cambridge University but googling about, I really don't see much evidence of notable impact, a book published by CUP, and a few articles, but nothing clearly over the WP:PROF bar IMHO. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be cited often enough to pass muster at WP:PROF. Given the rather specialised nature of his field, it's not reasonable to expect a truckload of references. Lankiveil (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete his field seems relatively unspecialized to me; he's working on a popular epic and is a lecturer in one of the world's most popular ancient languages. (Latin, Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, in some order, would be my guess.) I just don't see that he reaches the notability bar.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Western academic work on ancient Sanskrit literature is an extremely small field, and practically the classic influence of specialization. One major book by a press like CUP is enough here. DGG (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Only delete argument seems to be under
]Wiimbledon
- )
Despite claims of coverage in mainstream media (see talk pages), I cannot see a reason on why is this necessary. Previous CSD request was turned down. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep seems to be getting attention, though no evident news sources. JJL (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, there is coverage in reliable secondary sources, which means this meets the notability criteria. Lankiveil (talk) 12:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per JJL and Lankiveil. Smartyllama (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Being on secondary source in this case, only shows this is newsworthly, not notability.. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- respons but something that has made so many news things is surely notable. Smartyllama (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Wii sports, unless the size of this article grows considerably. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.