Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 11
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Much of this discussion was about the philosophy and importance of maintaining lists and the need for inclusion criteria for lists. These are editing issues, not deletion issues. That some people have added themselves to these lists in an unscrupulous manner does not mean that the lists themselves are tacitly unacceptable. That they are redundant to the list of Puerto Ricans is a silly argument, as we have many many lists on wikipedia that overlap in varying granularity. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Puerto Rican comedians
- List of Puerto Rican comedians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note: I am nominating these lists per request by User:Marine 69-71. The original request can be found here.
The "list of Puerto Rican comedians" is not necessary, not managed and occupy Wikipedia space. The "List of Puerto Ricans" has a management team that has set up a requirement criteria and that requires that all additions be cited with reliable verifiable sources as policy. The following lists have also been nominated for deletion for the same reasons:
- )
- List of Puerto Rican architects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Puerto Rican writers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tavix (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as I have stated these "lists" are a spin-off the "List of Puerto Ricans" and do not have a clear criteria, nor do the names cite sources as required by policy. These lists are sub-sections of the original "List of Puerto Ricans" which has a management team who has verified the notability of every name on the it before establishing the current strict criteria. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that having a bunch of redundant dynamic lists helps us much as a project, but shouldn't we delete and use the titles as redirect for specific sections of List of Puerto Ricans? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, That is a reasonable option. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per items 2, 3, and 7 at ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all & discuss how to organize the material -- elsewhere. Sure they have a clear criterion, the usual one, that all of the people listed have Wikipedia articles. (a few don't, and for these either somethings had too be added to indicate they are clearly qualified, or else the individual names removed). That has routinely been accepted as sufficient justification for all such lists. I don't see how it can be simultaneously asserted that: a/the main list has good criteria. b/ this is basically a copy and c/ this does not have good criteria. The list has the potential of adding additional navigational information to provide some context for browsing, such as dates. Tho this has not yet been done, it could be, for most of the information is there on the main list. as for whether we need both, perhaps we would do better to break up the very long main list into section like this. But that is a merge/spit discussion, not a deletion proposal. DGG (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for DGG First of all, this is a deletion discussion, this is the place to discuss such things. Please stop wanting to discuss things elsewhere when we already have the proposal right here. Second, no one is trying to discuss all three things at once so don't try to sell this off as such. You are correct in saying that the main list has good criteria, it is well referenced with reliable sources, ect. But the other two reasons are reasons to delete, not keep. It is in fact a copy of the main article so it is pointless to have both lists at once. Your statement in which you say the list has potential is correct, but that potential has already been met at the main article if you actually take the time to look there. All in all, none of your reasons add up to be a reason to keep the article, so please help me out in your consensus.
- Keep all - per DGG who's gotten it right again. Whether merged or not, the addition of a short descriptive for each entry would really enhance these lists.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Mike I agree that a short discription would enhance the lists, but at the main List of Puerto Ricans list, there already is a discription for everybody there, including comedians, writers, archetects, and artists. So what we would be doing really would be copying more from the main article thus making even more of a copy, which doesn't make sense. Tavix (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept your point, but to a point. Thinking about any list as a stand-alone compliation of related stuff, this list would be improved with additional descriptions. Not descriptions merely copied from the List of Puerto Ricans which has broader criteria, but descriptions that purposely highlighted the Comedic career of these individuals.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The absence of any clear criteria for inclusion, along with the management to verify and monitor, makes these lists in the context of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia both misleading and ultimately not useful. In the case of Puerto Rican Architects, many individuals were adding their names and projects without the slightest consideration for notability, relevance and basic Wikipedia ethics. However, the compilation of notable Puerto Ricans in these three categories is important - particularly as a framework for individual biographical entries as well as an understanding of the discipline as a whole. With respect to Architecture, which is the discipline I belong to, I recommend the following criteria as a basis for inclusion: Authors of books and publications on Puerto Rican Architecture; Subjects of books and publications on Puerto Rican Architecture; Recipients of the Henry Klumb Award (Puerto Rico's College of Architects Highest Honor), Puerto Rican Fellows of the American Institute of Architects FAIA - the AIA highest honor for contributions to the profession; and Founders of the Puerto Rican Schools of Architecture. This should give a solid core base with a clear recognized criteria for selection / inclusion. Nechodoma (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit collaboration
- Implicit collaboration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was tagged for speedy deletion when first created, but I gave the original editor a chance to fix the article. Some time has passed and the importance has not been asserted. There are no references, and it is suspected OR. He recently removed a prod template. Ndenison talk 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was leaning towards delete just looking at the article, but a book search reveals that the term is widely used in the computer industry. A google scholar search produces several papers regarding the topic, particularly this one. Seems to pass ]
- Keep per sources found above. Hobit (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nezameddin Faghih
- Nezameddin Faghih (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiography. Macrakis (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would not say that the fact that this is, apparently, an autobiography is sufficient grounds for deletion but it is certainly a reason to look at the article very carefully. In this case, upon closer inspection, many things do not check out. First, a GoogleScholar search for this academic returns almost nothing[1] and there is nothing at all in GoogleBooks[2]. That appears to indicate that the work of this scholar is basically complely unknown outside of Iran. I tried to verify some info listed in the article, with no success. For example, he is said to have the rank of "distinguished professor" at ]
- I found another webpage for him at Shiraz university which has more info:[8]. In particular, it contains an item "Academic Man of The Year, by ABI, USA, 1998". So it seems that it was an award by the American Biographical Institute, a vanity press outlet which sells honors and awards for a fee. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After that careful analysis by Nsk92, what more to say? --Crusio (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ditto.John Z (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete To provide a cross-check on cultural bias, I examined Scopus, which is more complete than Web of science for the less developed countries, especially in the social sciences. He has only one paper listed there, "Sustainable rangeland management using a multi-fuzzy model: How to deal with heterogeneous experts' knowledge" by Azadi, H. , Shahvali, M. , van den Berg, J. , Faghih, N., in Journal of Environmental Management Volume 83, Issue 2, April 2007, Pages 236-249 It gives his address as "Economic Department, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran." It has never been cited. Since it was only published in 07, it may hyet be, but the absence of other papers shows a lack of impact upon the subject. Of the other authors, van den Berg is the only one at all well known, having 19 papers there, and must therefore be regarded as the principal author. Neither of the others have any other publications listed. DGG (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the extensive research above. There is no doubt in my mind that this individual is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia biography of his own. Also 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rumi and Modern Scientific Views
- Rumi and Modern Scientific Views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-promotion of self-published book. Macrakis (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--fails ]
- Delete A NN book by a NN person named Nezameddin Faghih and created by...]
- Delete Not notable - no third party coverage, as far as I can see. Article is written like an advert as well: "one of the greatest geniuses of mankind and the most eminent mystical poet of any age and all time"? Appears to be just a copy of the blurb, as well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. This article was clearly created solely for the purpose of self-promotion. It is also non-notable. Khoikhoi 07:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excelta Corporation
- Excelta Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Company which fails
]- Delete per nom Ndenison talk 03:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN, no sources, OR. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mpiri
- Mpiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"Prod" is no prize shooting. But AfD is a discussion that can go either way. Is this local choir notable? It looks like a vanity page. Their source is their own website. Stijndon (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasons above. Stijndon (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reasons I've opposed ]
- A Question of Protocol, and please let me know if I've missed the subheader/section/paragraph somewhere, but since you nominated this article for deletion, isn't it assumed you want it deleted and therefore, you don't need to comment for its deletion? Also, I'm unsure about this one; is there a Faeroe expert around?Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry about apparently voting twice, I thought that a nomination had to be paired with your own vote. I remember having seen AfD's where the first vote would be motivated with "as per being the nominator." I guess I'll read up on it, too. Stijndon (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there's some recommendation somewhere that says you're supposed to add your !vote on the deletion debate as the first !vote. Not everyone does, particularly because if you do that, everyone will be confused by that in AfD debates (your comment is yet another fine example =) Most people just provide their rationale in the nomination text and don't bother with the rule. It's yet another of those protocol issues that are there just to confuse people and no one dared to change it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ]
- Not to be smart about it, but it says in the article itself that the choir is based in Copenhagen - basically, any Dane will do. No need for a specific Faroer. Stijndon (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ]
- Weak keep This search doesn't prove their notability but they appear reasonably known as a choir group from Denmark. I can't read Danish but they clearly are verifiable. Ravenmasterq is right The nominator, Stijndon, has now voted twice to delete this article...which is ethically wrong in my view. Artene50 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some of that aforementioned verifiability can be translated into notability. da.wp does not have an article. ]
- Comment I am pretty sure that there is no ethical lapse in stating explicitly that this was not a purely procedural nomination. There was no attempt to deceive an unwary reader. - ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Wieland
- Carl Wieland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article has been on wikipedia for three years and contains three sources: two links to his website and one footnote, without a page number, from his book. If there is any proof of notablity from an independent source, it's not included. There is no demonstration of notability.
]- Keep but improve. talk) is right that there is no demonstration of notability. But I think the lack is in the demonstration, not the notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LowKey (talk • contribs) 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then add sources that prove notablility. ]
- Do you mean here or in the article? LowKey (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In either. I am asking you to support your claim "I think the lack is in the demonstration, not the notability" with sources. ]
- Do you mean here or in the article? LowKey (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then add sources that prove notablility. ]
- Neutral The two sources from the subject's own book don't establish his own notability. They are not WP:RS. However, there is this book he published which may or may not prove his notability as a creationist. Artene50 (talk) 06:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are zero independent reliable references, therefore there is no case for this to be kept.--Lester 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable - the problem is simply that it is not asserted. He's a reasonably well known individual of at least two decades standing in the creationist field, would have been published in reliable sources (more than likely prior to the start of Factiva coverage in the mid 1990s though) and in the context of AIG/CMI is basically the No.1 in Australia. It should definitely be improved, but I don't know where to find the source materials for that. Orderinchaos 01:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- If you can't prove he's notable then how do we know? We need independent sources and have none. If he's known from ]
- Keep: Wieland gets solid mention in The Creationists for his role in the formation, and then breakup, of Answers in Genesis. HrafnTalkStalk 04:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOM interface
- NOM interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable redux of an existing API, which is seemingly not used for any notable games.
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--]
- Delete - per nom. No cited sources as well. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 23:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails ]
- Delete - per NOM --T-rex 04:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mandy Jiroux
- Mandy Jiroux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I think we can all agree that
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete- she is notable for being Cyrus' best friend and making YouTube videos with her but other that I see no other notability established.--]
- Redirect to Miley Cyrus rather than deleting. I agree Mandy Jiroux isn't notable in her own right.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above, while mentioned in news articles, it is not significant coverage, and only in the vein of Miley Cyrus and best friend.... Fails notability is not inherited - if it doesn't work for spouses, it certainly doesn't work for "best buddies". - Toon05 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good and Broken
- )
The song didn't chart very well at all... like many of her songs - seems useless CloversMallRat (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- On the other hand, it did just barely crack the top 100, so there may be room for debate here after all, but I'm sticking by my above vote to merge. ]
- There's lots of song articles not made for songs that make like the top 50 out of the 100... so I don't see how making the lowest chart position is notable... I also think most of her song articles are good candidates for deletion CloversMallRat (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that another article hasn't been created is not generally considered a valid argument. See ]
- I just happened to notice is all, and I had previously put AfD for her song Full Circle because it was only rumours... and I happened to notice most of her articles don't have much info or they charted poorly -- country songs generally only get pages if they make the top 20, for instance CloversMallRat (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the AfD run The song charted, and was performed on American Idol. "]
DeleteMerge -per ]- Please clarify With respect, the section you quoted argues pretty strongly for merger rather than deletion. Can we assume you're arguing for merge and redirect, or outright deletion? ]
- I'm sorry, I meant merge.--]
- Merge back into ]
- Delete and redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus - despite what the article says, there is no evidence this song was promoted as a single --T-rex 04:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus - this song was released as a single, didn't chart anywhere and hasn't any official music video. No reason to keep this page. --Voices4ever-talk 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- There are 0 votes to keep, why are we drawing this out for another 5 days? ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fearless (Taylor Swift album)
- Fearless (Taylor Swift album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until more sources and cover art can be found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep This article has some potential, plus the album is not that far into the future. Ndenison talk 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's an incomplete tracks list in the USA Today article, and a reasonably confident-appearing date for release (which, incidentally, is also reflected in the news section of Ms. Swift's official website). ]
- Keep-Per ]
- Comment: perhaps this could be merged with ]
- Release date and partial track list from the label. Yeah the album is three months out, so there's still wiggle room on the last tracks... but one track is already in heavy promotional use for the Olympics, and they're starting to "sell" the album on August 22. Seems to me there's enough coverage at this point to justify a separate article. ]
- Ah, good link, thanks. Here's another. I still think merging might be best until the whole track list is confirmed, though. Cliff smith talk 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My respectful disagreement comes from the fact the album is already getting significant press coverage such that Wikipedia's fundamental RS requirements are met despite the album's future release date. The album's sales timetable and unusual marketing plan have generated an unusual amount of press, for example see here (E Online via Yahoo), here (UPI), non-trivial discussion of the album in the second half of this interview (Tennessean). We don't have cover art yet because part of the marketing gimmick involves using fan photos for the cover art. ]
- Ah, good link, thanks. Here's another. I still think merging might be best until the whole track list is confirmed, though. Cliff smith talk 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Release date and partial track list from the label. Yeah the album is three months out, so there's still wiggle room on the last tracks... but one track is already in heavy promotional use for the Olympics, and they're starting to "sell" the album on August 22. Seems to me there's enough coverage at this point to justify a separate article. ]
- Merge back into Taylor Swift article until such time as full, referenced track listing, art work and such are known. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - future album with no tracklisting --T-rex 04:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the album doesn't have much info yet... should wait until more info to make the article CloversMallRat (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Yes it is a future album, but there have been a number of reliable, independent articles about the album and its upcoming release. Plus, I have concerns that a vote to delete may set a precedent, whereby future albums with significant mainstream coverage may be deleted just because they are future albums. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quivvy Church
- Quivvy Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a former church that was turned into a recording studio. Its only external link is from the Dead Can Dance website which is that band that uses it. Quivvy Church's claim to notability is the fact that it is the recording studio for Dead Can Dance, but I don't find that to be that special. Exactly 1,000 Google hits for "Quivvy Church" and a few of them are quite sketchy. Tavix (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not significant for own article. That could easy be included in the band's article. Ndenison talk 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unclear notability. Punkmorten (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per ]
- Delete - per nom. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Colwilson (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graffiti (album)
- )
Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete Not verified as required by ]
- Delete Some major crystal balling here. "The album is set for release sometime in 2009"? ]
- Delete - per ]
- Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 23:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Title, track list, and release date must all be confirmed by artist or label. Cliff smith talk 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - future album with no tracklisting --T-rex 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL, too soon to tell for any information about Brown's next album. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet ]
- Delete --Musamies (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lodi Station Outlets
- Lodi Station Outlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a totally average shopping center, which (to me) is enough assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion, but not enough to stand as its own article. Of the three references, one is from the place's website, one is a realtor's website about the transfer of property when the center changed hands in 2007, and the other is a listing on a tourism website, none of which amount to significant coverage. Article was tagged for speedy deletion three days ago, but tag was removed by the page's author. Nyttend (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not anymore significant than the mall next to me, doesn't justify an article. Ndenison talk 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Rabuck
- Richard Rabuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nom; I've declined a speedy on this because some of the claims in it make him potentially notable. I personally don't think there's enough here to warrant an article (given there will by definition be 50 "youngest in the state" in the US alone, and thousands of their equivalents worldwide), but can see how some might. – ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. What he did after his tenure on the school board makes him borderline notable,
not to mention that this looks like the man to watch for in the coming years in Pennsylvania.-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Weak keep Does have some notability. Should be tagged for POV though. Ndenison talk 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His claim to notability is election a school board, and not a major one at that. He gets incidental coverage in local press as a consequence of his being on the school board. Doesn't even begin to meet the bar at ]
- Keep As a young person and a political science major, I think this post has notability as it symbolizes a change in American Politics. True, this person may only be the Youngest School Board Member in the History of Pennsylvania; however, what this type of post does for the movement of Young People in Politics is priceless. Alienlady24 11:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find a vote on an AfD very suspicious when it's the first edit of a brand-new account. Socks, anyone? Ironholds 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or perhaps an editor who didn't think his or her concerns would be taken seriously without a username, and then finds them not taken seriously even with a username. Let's not bite the new people; allow the article to remain or be deleted on its merits. --NellieBly (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find a vote on an AfD very suspicious when it's the first edit of a brand-new account. Socks, anyone? Ironholds 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Delete, then; doesn't even begin to pass ]
- Keep As the creator of this article, I am hopeful that we would decide to keep and not delete what I feel is an important feat to mention. Not only is Mr. Rabuck the youngest elected board member in the History of one of the largest and oldest states in the nation but he was elected as so at a time when youth in politics was scarce. In fact, I would argue that Mr. Rabuck and several other "Youngest" politicians from their state started a trend that is now sweeping across the nation as more and more youth are interested in politics. I would also point out that there have even been books writen on this subject, including one that features Mr. Rabuck -- "The Y-Factor: A New Generation Enters Politics" writen by Kyle Johnston and Wayne Parent, PHD both of the Louisiana State University Political Science Department. Potus2020 9:47, 14 August 2008
- Delete Election to a school board, even if you're the youngest, doesn't seem notable to me. Where does it end if simply being the youngest of something is enough for an article in Wikipedia? And if his political aspirations have prompted someone to create this article, then they should come back in a few years, because at the moment, he definitely doesn't meet ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Drifting (1983 film)
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, one of two deletes (SWik78) has changed to keep - (non-admin close) --T-rex 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- )
No assertion that this passes Wikipedia:Notability_(films), unsourced, no IMDB listing, filmmaker and all involved actors are redlinked. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep per this, thanks to whoever found it! Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP! In terms of LGBT Media and Cinema, Drifting was the first gay-themed moved made in and by Isarelis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browned (talk • contribs)
- Can you provide a reference of that fact? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And even with that, it still doesn't seem to pass these guidelines Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the two references provided, one requires a subscription, and the other, while it is a genuine New York Times article, does little to establish the film's notability.
The absence of an IMDB listing should be addressed as well.-- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Keep The NYT review is a good source, and it's highly unlikely that they were the only newspaper to review the film. For the record, it is listed at IMDB: [9]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already there, actually. Here's another review (though I can't access the whole thing): [10]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's Variety: [11]. Zagalejo^^^ 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
****Sorry, but what does this link prove? ]
Deletechanged to Keep (see below) IMDB listing does little to help establish notability. The film was released in only one city in the English speaking world in 1983 and has only one critical review listed on IMDB. There are no entries for the film at Box Office Mojo to establish a wide release nor at RottenTomatoes to provide multiple reviews by film critics. There is no indication of the film’s influence on its genre nor inclusion within any national film archive. All in all, the film fails all points of notability listed in ]- Keep. Reviews in the New York Times and the Phildelphia Inquirer are enough to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. Again, this was the first Israeli gay-themed film. Aside from the several reviews of the film in the straight and gay press, it was also talked about in the book titled, "Arab And Jews Wounded Spirits In A Promised Land" By David K. Shipler. It does have an Internet Movie Database Entry, for its Hebrew title. At least one of the actors was fairly notable in Israel. User: Browned.
- Strong, swift & speedy keep. Notability is proven by the sources provided above (not least the NY Times), and I've found aditional coverage in the Bright Lights Film Journal. A landmark film in Arab-Israeli gay cinema for which we should plainly have an article, by a notable director who would easily meet WP:BIO should someone care to write an article for him too. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that ]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. PC78 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per this link provided by PC78. ]
- Keep. Notabilty has been established. Do suggest further sorcing, but it passes. Schmidt (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Proved notability, needs cleanup however. Ndenison talk 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A theatrically released film is notable. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Constant Outsider
- The Constant Outsider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NN autobiography published through a vanity press, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self published, and I can't find any reliable sources via Google that would provide notability or help this pass ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid talk 19:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete A google search does in fact come up with many results, one of them being the book's official site, http://www.TheConstantOutsider.com. The author has been interviewed more than once. One of the interviews was actually broadcasted on a Boston public access channel, which millions of people have access to. The book is available on many well known sites, such as BarnesAndNobel.com, and Amazon.com. --Kcgreatfox (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no references in WP:RS that we can access. [12] apart from the radio interview above on a local station. Sticky Parkin 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteTwo articles regarding the release of the book were published in the Middleboro Gazette. One can be found here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080626/PUB04/806260397. I have just added a link to this newspaper article to the Wikipedia article. I should also mention that the book is currently in the process of being reviewed by http://www.readerviews.com, and that review should be released within the next few days.--Kcgreatfox (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the problem is that the notability guidelines in Notability (books) says The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, and one or even two is a stretch to meet multiple. I personally searched a database that supposedly has full text on 12 Boston area newspapers and came up with nothing.--Captain-tucker (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the problem is that the notability guidelines in
- Delete book has not been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial reviews/articles/etc. Readerviews.com is a peer-reviewing site whose reviewers are unpaid amateur volunteers and to which any book can be submitted. Any book can have a website for a small amount of money. Any book with an ISBN can get itself listed on Amazon. A newspaper review about a local person and his self-published autobiography is not enough to satisfy WP:N, and nor is a piece on public access TV. It may well be an interesting read, and I hope it does well, but at present it is simply not ]
- Comment, it is true that Readerviews.com will review any book for a fee, but they will occasionally review a book for free if, after looking over it, they think it is a very good book. They agreed to do a free review for this book, which is not a privilege every book receives. Also, the fact that the book has a website is not the point I was making. I was arguing that there are legitimate search results that appear when the book is searched in google, including a professionally made site. Also, getting a spot on a public access channel in Boston is much more significant than getting a spot on a public access channel in a small town, due to the huge number of potential viewers. Many authors do not get televised publicity of any kind--Kcgreatfox (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An interview on public access channel, regardless of locale, is not acceptable by itself for satisfying WP:BK. PEG channels are required by federal law to accept any programming from any member of the community they serve with no stipulations on content. All programs are essentially self published by amateurs, with content at the discretion of their producer and are not peer-reviewed, fact checked, or verified in any way, except in to ensure that the video quality is of a high enough technical standard for broadcasting. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete,I believe that two newspaper articles, an upcoming review by a well known website, a radio interview, and a television interview is enough to make this a valid book to have an article for. The author is currently in the process of scheduling more interviews, so the publicity of the book and its author is continuing to grow. The book has also been reviewed by psychologist Izzy Kalman, author of Bullies to Buddies. He also discusses the book in one of his newsletters. I will locate this newsletter, and include it in the article. Hopefully this will add enough credibility to resolve this debate.--Kcgreatfox (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kcgreatfox, you've now made a bold text "vote" three times in this debate. It's usual at AfD to express your opinion only as a comment after you've stated your initial stance re keep/merge/delete/whatever in bold text. You're the article's creator, sole contributor and defender, and I do respect your obvious enthusiasm for the book itself - and I send my good wishes for its success - but this is not about whether the book is any good, or whether it is being enthusiastically promoted at a local level and on an amateur review website, but about whether it has achieved WP:notability per the guidelines, and I cannot see that it has, even stretching the criteria to their utmost. Wikipedia is not a tool for promoting new creative work by unknown authors, but a place where notability is recorded once it has happened. Karenjc 23:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I apologize for voting 3 times. I did not realize that every time I stated "do not delete" I was placing a vote, having never had to defend an article this fiercely before. I strongly believe that there is more than enough credibility to this article. I see no harm in leaving it up, as it is a real book that has been mentioned in real newspapers, websites, and talk shows, but it is clear that quite a few people are determined to see this article deleted. I've already made every point that I can, and feel the article should be left active. It is incredible to me that everyone disregards every single bit of credibility I add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcgreatfox (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to keep the contributions clear, I've struck through the redundant !votes by Kcgreatfox. Deor (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Meets none of the criteria of ]
- Delete - Fails WP:BK, no evidence of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per
]Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz
- Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Review of a book based entirely on copy-pasted outbursts of political propaganda found online. Facts, drawn from the book, were long corrected by Yad Vashem whose scientific findings are not even mentioned, because they’re not a part of the book. There's already an article on the subject of this book featured in Wikipedia. However, the impression maintained in the article is that the writer was merely presenting original and undisputed facts, which is false. The article contains elements of hate speech. It equates Polish people with the Nazis with coded messages disguised as citations. On top of that, the article is plastered with words of praise flying in the face of
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Poeticbent talk 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been removed from the list of Literature-related deletion discussions as that is clearly an inappropriate place to list a history book. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy keep The book satisfies WP:PEACOCK applies to the narrative voice, not quotes from reviews by others. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note, this nomination is not about the book, but about the ill-fated article spiked with loaded messages inserted into it from online outbursts of racial sentiments. --Poeticbent talk 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, it doesn't work like that here. This forum is for deciding whether or not there should be an article on the topic of the book. If you don't like the content of the article, then the proper forum to address that is ]
- Thanks for the tip. I will do as you say, because my standards are higher than this. In fact I already started working on a new case, but I will wait for the comments. This has been an interesting experiment in PR for me. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but not a single Polish editor cast a vote in this nomination so far (see below), except for an admin who probably believes that he can withstand the negative sentiment. One user, who never worked on Poland-related articles was more than enthusiastic; while, the actual discourse remained painfully familiar to me.[13] --Poeticbent talk 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, it doesn't work like that here. This forum is for deciding whether or not there should be an article on the topic of the book. If you don't like the content of the article, then the proper forum to address that is ]
- Please note, this nomination is not about the book, but about the ill-fated article spiked with loaded messages inserted into it from online outbursts of racial sentiments. --Poeticbent talk 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Well and widely reviewed academic book by a Princeton professor. AfD is not the place for edit warring, please don't bring that article's edit war here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The book is notable. POV problems are not an argument for deletion (just as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish death camp controversy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confrontational nature of this ill-fated article is magnified by the fact that no evidence is given in the article for any of the allegations made thereafter. It is a propaganda piece based in loaded messages meant to produce an emotional rather than rational response. --Poeticbent talk 19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An article about a book shouldn't comment about the veracity of the book's claims. It should quote the comments of others who have questioned them, which this article does in the "Reception" section. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Speedy keep. The book's notable and the topic is encyclopaedic. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I hope nominator will withdraw nomination, that has no chance to succeed anyway, before it turns into yet another flame battlefield. ]
- Comment - this article could be deleted as per WP:SOAP (reception section) - Wikipedia is NOT a place to place lenghty fiction plot summaries or book reviews which this article is overwhelmed with. greg park avenue (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting. How does this compare to (deleted) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't in any way, besides, I requested DRV for that one Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 11. Hope, will be back in a week or so. greg park avenue (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The summary of Fear makes up less than 1/3 of the article. I don't see how that can be compared to an article that consisted entirely of a summary. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That article actually consisted of one big giant ]
- I think those are reasons to clean up, not delete. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, obviously. Seems like everything related to Jan T. Gross gets nominated for deletion sooner or later. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What makes you think that this nomination is about the book or its author? No. It isn’t. It is about hate speech featured prominently in a review of a review of a book, a review from a trade magazine equating Polish nation with the Nazis. Fix that, and the nomination will loose its teeth. Or perhaps, the nomination should be re-listed as Partisan screed, opinion masquerading as fact, or Libelous, defamatory, or slanderous comments under Wikipedia:Libel. What do you say? --Poeticbent talk 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an issue for the talk page of the article. The only question for this forum is should a Wikipedia article on this topic exist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a subject of an intense edit war with outside examples of hate mongering and political propaganda copy-pasted into it right from the inception. The article has cancer. --Poeticbent talk 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you agree that you are using the deletion process as a continuation of your participation in an edit war. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. You're wrong. I have long abandoned this article as being hopelessly flawed. The article needs to be deleted or recreated from scratch by a more competent editor without a hidden agenda. --Poeticbent talk 17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flattery will get you nowhere. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - However, it needs to be shortened for greater concision and be thoroughly cleaned up and copyedited. Also brings up an interesting question - does this inadvertantly create a 'Fear' namespace :P ? Brilliantine (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that it is entirely possible to have a perfectly valid article about a wholly disreputable book (see, for instance,
- Comment--it's snowing. Upgrade my recommendation to speedy keep.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the above recommendation posted by User:S Marshall has been repeated twice for display purposes. Poeticbent talk
- Keep and improve because it reliable and valid. IZAK (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hilly Briggs
- Hilly Briggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No sign of signnif'ce. May be self promotion. Burningjoker (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G7 speedy delete since author has blanked page. So tagged. Cliff smith talk 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom; also fails ]
- Delete per nom. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not proved. Ndenison talk 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn. Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked in Google News archives, and also in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but have found no sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources appear by the end of this discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete - there's an allegation of notability that he's toured the UK, but I can't find anything 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 Keep. It's not that the keep arguments were particularly sound, it's just that the delete rationale was extraordinarily weak. The deletion policy advises us to err on the side of keep. Considered no consensus, but there was a majority of !votes for keep, as well, so the scales tipped that a way. No consensus is really a keep outcome anyway, so it's really all semantics. Merging and redirection can still be pursued by interested editors, as such action does not require AfD. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Lofty CFS Group
- )
This seems another unnotable rural fire brigade and should be deleted like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwandalan Rural Fire Brigade recently. Grahame (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The argument that "Other Stuff Does Not Exist" is not a valid deletion reasoning. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit Conflict) Actually, it IS a valid argument.
- See WP:Other stuff exists.
- It works both ways.
Weak Delete(see below)- The "Brigades in Mt Lofty group" Heading seems to show that this is not an end-level, but a heirarchical unit. MAYBE notable "enough".
- Perhaps a "Firefighting organizations in Australia" that could incorporate this and other articles?
- Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 02:49, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- I am guesing that you mean something like Lists of Country Fire Service groups and brigades. To incorporate all currently existing articles into this list and create a single Article would (IMHO) do a dis-service to the Wiki. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that (in this instance) notability is gained from being the group command unit that issues fire bans to the general populace. WP:RS's for this fact can be found. [14]. The units under its command should/could (IMO) be merged into this Article to improve overall quality. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While an individual brigade may be of limited notability (not getting into this now), this article is about a group of individual brigades. CFS groups are indeed notable in the chain of command. There appears to be something of a CFS wikiproject on the go here [[15]]. Some of the individual brigade articles are nothing more than links to other brigades. These should be deleted or merged to appropriate CFS group articles such as this one. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There definitely needs to be something about Mr Lofty fire brigrades in Wikipedia. Maybe some merges of individual brigrade articles into this one? Mr Lofty area fires are (in)famous (at least nationally in Australia), and are too often fatal or injurous, and the combatting of them over time is definitely notable. The article does not do them justice. Peet Ern (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the "group of brigades" and in that way, Fire Department New York (FDNY) deserve its own page? Does Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Fire Department? What about every one-engine volunteer station across the US? That doesn't even begin to get to UK, Australia, etc.
- For that matter, maybe the WP:Other stuff existsguideline itself could use this very complicated situation as an example...?
- I agree with the "group of brigades" and in that way,
Weak Keep(Based on discussion, change in original recommendation.)- Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 08:01, 4 Aug 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Where are the references from reliable sources to establish notability? There are none! This should be the most basic principle applied before an article can be kept. But here there are no reliable sources. I checked the ABC search posted earlier in this thread, and it led me on a wild goose chase. There was nothing that even mentioned the "Mount Lofty CFS Group". While each local brigade may be notable, the group isn't. Especially because it was only set up for the purposes of funding. Non-notable entity.--Lester 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this one help establish their ability to order a fire ban? Sometimes the Locals dont use the same name that the international community would. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Mount Lofty. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mount Lofty - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A small rural brigade might have to strive to show notability, but this is a pretty large rural group. That's big enough for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for lacking evidence of real world notability and absence of reliable sourcing.
]Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Team Go-Getters Out Of The Gate!
- )
Totally non-notable episode. Fails
]- Yeah, right. And it's only a promo for the video games... Keep. NoseNuggets (talk) 6:56 PM US EDT Aug 11 2008.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it has been improved since the last AFD which was a no consensus. ]
- Delete or redirect to List of episodes. It's been almost two years since the last AfD, and still no sign of notability; just a plot summary and some unsourced trivia. Am willing to reconsider if proof of notability is supplied during this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 10:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable independent sources, so no notability.Kww (talk) 02:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 (+ A7, presumably). — Scientizzle 23:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Yep! – Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leonardo Desailly
- Leonardo Desailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
With no references, article fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything either. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rather grand claims of notability, none of which can be backed up. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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
]Pappi Ndelu
- Pappi Ndelu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Self-promoting article about non-notable singer-songwriter. No references; Ghits are almost all Myspace and Facebook. Speedy declined "'signed to Sony and now owner of his own label' sounds enough to me"; however, he was signed to Sony South Africa in 1997 and only released a single; now he is in London and has his own label and his network of companies, but they seem entirely non-notable - no Ghits 1 2 3 except Myspace, directory listings, his own website and Wikipedia. Also, the article is on the spammy side and is a blatant
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced. While I'm willing to believe he's possibly notable – not all African musicians are likely to be listed in web directories, even relatively successful ones – at the moment it's unverifiable. – ]
- Delete This article reads like a classic fan page. Anyway, subject's notability is not proven with no ]
Update Since this article was AfD'd an IP, presumably the author, has been working very hard on it and there is now more content and a string of references. The article now mentions two albums in South Africa, and a "studio project" called "Jesus is Salvation" with the "12 Funky Disciplez" which was "released digitally globally" last year. I have worked through the references; they are (a) sources from which you can buy his first album "Washa" (b) sources from which you can download "Jesus is Salvation" (c) Myspace and Youtube and (d) a couple that don't mention him. This is a good deal better than the original article, but I still don't think it meets
- Comment I still think it edges towards delete; as JohnCD says, I don't think there's enough there yet to warrant a rethink. – ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and
]Athcast
- Athcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently about as non-notable a website as it's possible to get ("the world's first rockumentary podcast series"). This has been created and speedied three times so far, so bringing it over to get a consensus to delete, so it can be salted and/or
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hit with strong salt non notable and keeps being recreated. Sticky Parkin 19:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Athcast is not a website. Athcast is a podcasting series that has produced hundreds of episodes filled with live music from Athens, Georgia. Athcast was the first podcasting series to combine live music performances, band interviews, fan interviews, and photos from the concert and make them available for .m4b download. This is a notable media brand.
Athcast is one of the few independent brands that has its own "room" on the iTunes Music Store. Most of these rooms are given to large corporations such as BBC, etc. Apple created the room for Athcast Podcasts -- and that is notable as evidenced by the Athens Music room on the iTunes Music Store.
Athcast also has a website. And as stated above, Athcast.com is probably as non-notable as it can get -- the site itself is merely a portal for the live concert recordings.
The traffic that Athcast the podcasting series generates, however, is certainly notable. Below is a breakdown of athcast stats. In July, Athcast podcasts generated 63,237 unique visitors.
Month Uniques visits Pages Hits Bandwidth
Jan 2008 46720 188478 497441 535706 151.61 GB
Feb 2008 49556 202138 531714 562217 136.66 GB
Mar 2008 53710 220708 583040 610686 110.04 GB
Apr 2008 54986 233723 614011 643451 112.07 GB
May 2008 56863 238545 622381 655708 103.48 GB
Jun 2008 58621 234100 628685 655862 119.83 GB
Jul 2008 63237 241713 764427 831326 148.02 GB
Aug 2008 32624 86944 294524 321864 63.70 GB
Sep 2008 0 0 0 0 0
Oct 2008 0 0 0 0 0
Nov 2008 0 0 0 0 0
Dec 2008 0 0 0 0 0
Total 416317 1646349 4536223 4816820 945.41 GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brinkwar (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — Brinkwar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Or for someone who doesn't want to wade through the statistics, a somewhat more pertinent one may be "Athcast.com has a traffic rank of: 8,398,343" – ]
- Delete and salt. I wouldn't see too much into the number of unique visitors. Those figures usually include spiders, and a server usually cannot tell the difference. Per Iridescent, these figures seem pretty low for a podcast which you claim is notable. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
]Political timeline of the British Isles
- Political timeline of the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely pointless (I don't actually think we do "political timeline" articles/lists) and POV list, suffering from an overwhelmingly celtic nationalist bias. The original timeline didn't use the term "British Isles", it used the term "Pretanic Isles", which is AFAIK something used only by Irish nationalists to avoid saying "British Isles" The last two hundred years on this list are devoted almost entirely to the Irish question, when actually the British Isles have been doing other things doing. Not to mention all the other reasons listed here. Moreschi (talk) ( debate ) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the problem of timelines in general as noted by the nominator, this is definitely worthless by the noted bias. The foundation of the end of the veto power of the House of Lords? The renaming of a political party is more important than the Falklands War? Strong delete. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I don't think we do "political timeline" articles either and I wouldn't know where to begin with this one. For starters, this sails right into the ongoing ]
- Delete . If all of the POV issues were taken care of this article would be so long and involved that it would cease to be useful in any way.--Vannin (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely agree with the above points. I will point out that a well researched article on the history of the Celts in the British Isles could be quite useful.Kbs666 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see how we can do a NPOV political timeline like this. As Folantin says, it is in the middle of the naming debate on the British Isles also. As for history of the Celts in Britain, it sounds good until you realise that we don't have an agreed definitionn for 'Celts', so I'm not sure about that. ]
- If nothing else, the debate on this article has brought to the fore the profound pro-British (British in the sense of English and ignoring of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish) and anti-Irish sentiment of the majority of Wikipedia’s editors, beginning with the pejorative manner in which the initiator (Moreschi) of these proceedings spat out the word “Celticist”. The reigns of the different monarchs are marked in each change if nothing else; by the kingdom’s own laws, prime ministers such as Thatcher are nothing more than servants and complaining about the noninclusion of the beginning of her term is rather petty. Regarding the Falkands War, it’s about as relevant to the overall politics of the countries of the Isles as Grenada is to the United States of America. Strange that there have been no similar complaints about the utter lack of mention of the British Raj in India. The reason I included neither is that both those subjects impacted more on the international scene rather than the internal inter-relations of the countries of the Isles. As for Margaret Thatcher, even Tories despise her these days and wish she’d never been elected, and she was certainly not as big a figure as Lloyd George or William Churchhill, the absence of mention of which no complaintant bothered to mention. Rather than being deleted, the timeline could be broken up into a Dark Age timeline and a Timeline of Irish republicanism. Originally, that’s what this timeline was, two different timelines, later joined into one. What I’d hoped to do with this, Wikipedia being an open editorial entity, was to establish a core around which addtiions could be made, but the bias I mentioned at the beginning is apparently going to prevent that since it is so strong as to demand deletion rather than adjustment of the kind I just mentioned or of allowing it remain as is for users of Wikipedia to view and edit.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, what crap. What sheer and utter bollocks. It's you with the perspective problems here. Thatcher is still very popular amoug modern-day Conservatives/Tories, and quite how you think she was PM in 1976 - a full 3 years before she did get that job - baffles me. She was/is hugely influential on modern-day Britain. You clearly know nothing of UK history, so stop, in your ignorance, implying that we're all racists. We're not. I don't even have strong views on Northern Ireland, FFS, much less Celtic sentiment (ugly phrasing, but whatever) elsewhere. Apart from Cornwall, that is...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "What sheer and utter bollocks". Seconded. Who the hell is "William Churchhill"? The only thing this has proved is you know feck all about the history of the British Isles. (BTW The "Scottish National Liberation Army"'s political impact on the UK has been roughly equivalent to that of the ]
- I'll third the bullocks. I'll point out that I'm of highland scots descent and very pro Scottish independence and thought this timeline article deserved deletion. Kbs666 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, what crap. What sheer and utter bollocks. It's you with the perspective problems here. Thatcher is still very popular amoug modern-day Conservatives/Tories, and quite how you think she was PM in 1976 - a full 3 years before she did get that job - baffles me. She was/is hugely influential on modern-day Britain. You clearly know nothing of UK history, so stop, in your ignorance, implying that we're all racists. We're not. I don't even have strong views on Northern Ireland, FFS, much less Celtic sentiment (ugly phrasing, but whatever) elsewhere. Apart from Cornwall, that is...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant Winston Churchhill, of course. Regarding Margaret Thatcher, Morsechi, why not simply correct the mistake or point it out for me to correct? Since your mention, I recall she was not the PM at the time, but since doing a considerable amount of reading on the subject back in 2001, I’d learned she was leader of Tories in 1975 and gotten that confused with when she became PM. As for her degree of popularity, obviously the Tory who gave me her assessment of Thatcher’s popularity in her own party is from a different wing of the Conservative and Unionist Party than you are. But in that case, why not add her election to the timeline? Furthermore, if you have no feeling regarding “Celtic sentiment”, why spit out the term “Celticist” as if it were an epithet? Why delete entirely rather than edit, make corrections, fill in blanks, leave the article up for the users of Wikipedia to do the same? Lastly, Moreschi, Folantin, Kbr666, your language is way the out of line and a violation of Wikipedia’s standards of debate, even if it is cursing in British slang rather than American slang. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, lol. There's no point replying to this. You clearly don't get it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why delete entirely rather than edit, make corrections, fill in blanks, leave the article up for the users of Wikipedia to do the same?" Why not read some books on the history of the British Isles before you start editing on the subject? There's a bit more to the past few centuries than Irish Republicanism and the internal wranglings of some obscure "Celtic" "militant" groups. By the way, you've missed a few of the latter. You might want to add the following to your list: Shining Peat (founded by Dougal Maguire, Ted Crilley and Jack Hackett, 1997); the Cymru Rouge (1975, initially under the leadership of Gwladys Puw and Paul Pott); Tartan Army Faction (Robert C. Nesbitt, Glasgow, 1981). --]
- Oh, lol. There's no point replying to this. You clearly don't get it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has ever put together a timeline like this, spanning that extent of years, at least not one that wasn't focused on the United Kingdom, skewed toward a view from London. Since you think more should be included, add. If there are mistakes, correct. Or recommend splitting up the timeline like I suggested as an alternative. Regarding those miniscule groups you mentioned, Folantin, I supposed you could add them if you like; I only added mention of the SNLA because Busby pokes his head up every few years attempting to get attention and most recently was in the news for a plot against the Queen, even if his operation is more or less a one-man outfit save for young idealist radicals he is able to hoodwink from time-to-time.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that your first sentence doesn't actually make any sense? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. I got in a hurry and left out the word "wasn't". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that your first sentence doesn't actually make any sense? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although with some regret. I actually like parts of the article, particularly the portion dealing with the 1-st millenium. However, apart from the POV and balance problems pointed above, I also think that the basic premise of the article is flawed. It is just too ambitious in terms of scope, covering too long a period of time and too many countries. With such a broad scope, it is hard to define reasonable criteria for inclusion (at the moment they seem to be somewhat arbitrary and POV driven). The article is already very long (and not well referenced); if one were to really fix all the balance and POV problems and sourcing issues, the thing would balloon even further and become completely unmanageable. Being a Russian, I am not that familiar with the British/Irish history but I too thought that there some strange omissions on one hand and some strange inclusions on the other. The run-up to WWII and the war itself are covered rather scantily. There is no mention of the Lord Halifax had become a PM in 1939, history would have turned out quite differently. Also, too little on both the rise of the British Empire in te 18th-19th centuries and too little on its disintegration and the fall of colonialism after WWII, Cold War, NATO, etc. I agree with the others above regarding the Falklands War and Margaret Thatcher. Certainly Thatcher is quite an important figure in modern British history (even though I myself view her influence rather negatively) and the Falklands War was a pivotal moment in terms of salvaging Thatcher's government, bolstering her popularity and ensuring another 8 years of her as a PM. By comparison, the fact that "SF-WP becomes simply the Workers’ Party" gets a separate 3-line entry for 1982. That clearly demonstrates how bad the balance problems in the current version are. The key point for me, however, is the first one: the scope of the article is too wide and unwieldy, and fixing the balance/POV problems and coverage and sourcing gaps would make it too long and unmanageable. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Nsk92, if the first millenium section is so valuable, then why not split the article in two instead of deleting it entirely? Or at least save that part of it? Why not a "Timeline of the British Isles" (or Insular Celts, or Whatever) and a "Timeline of Irish republicanism" (or even a "Timeline of republicanism in the British Isles"? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice The current three day old version is already irretrievably POV violating (just read from 1990 onwards and try not to be absolutely amazed given the premise of the title), and stylistically it meanders between one line list points and paragraphs of commentary and trivia. No prejudice for recreation as a timeline list topic of single line entries because real history reference works do manage to collate these sorts of comparative timelines quite well, which after all is wikipedia's aim to emulate. I have no doubt this topic would always become a POV/UNDUE nightmare, but we should aim to fix these issues, but this version is DOA. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the question of whether or not Wikipedia does timeline articles, see List of timelines.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreschi, I'm just curious, why do you have Folantin's debate page appended to your signature? I'm just curious.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Split -- the section up to 1750 seems to pick up many of the major events, but would be better as Timeline of the British Isles to 1750. Later sections are increasingly concerned with the struggles over the status of Ireland and at the end are wholly concerned with one of its four provinces, Ulster, mainly from a Republcian POV. That section should perhaps be deleted, but might be retained with a more appropriate title, such as Timeline of Irish Republicanism. Nevertheless, I am not convinced of the merits of such timelines as encyclopaedic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Split is much more reasonable than outright deletion. There are several Parliament Acts would definitely relevant to that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Timeline of Scottish history is the format I would prefer, single line reference sentences, not some of the long paragraphs here. As for a split, given that the list was created entirely by one person, the POV issues evident in the later parts may also exist throughout, but I'm not knowledgable enough to comment with certainty. It does however give me enough pause to maintain the delete and restart view, unless anyone else can assess it and convince me otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do ]
- Mick, I mentioned earlier in this discussion the current timeline is two merged together, one of which was simply history up to a certain point (mostly the Dark Ages) that had little to do with politics of the past two or three hundred years. Folantin, if you knew your Irish history, you'd realize that a large part of Irish republicanism was focused on anti-monarchialism, especially in its early years. The founders of the Friends of the People Society in England and Scotland also had Paine as their inspiration. Republicanism in the Isles is interconnected, which you would be able to see if your view were not so narrow. Irish republicans are as much descended from the Levellers, ideologically-speaking, as modern-day English republicans. By the way, why does Moreschi have YOUR debate page tagged onto the end of his name? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm sure the most famous English republican, Oliver Cromwell, is a big hero of Sinn Fein. "By the way, why does Moreschi have YOUR debate page tagged onto the end of his name?" If you followed the link you would have found out. I hosted an open, informal debate about POV-pushing on Wikipedia on my user pages between April and June this year. Moreschi is interested in the same topic. Why have you suddenly changed your name? I'm sure it's equally irrelevant to this AfD. --]
- Yeah, I suppose you're right, it does have the same nonrelevance, but I never thought it had any more than that (zero). I was just curious. As for Cromwell, the genuine republicans do recognize the small debt ideology-wise they owe him, but Cromwell was not really a republican, he was a dictator. The Levellers, on the other hand, were republican. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm sure the most famous English republican, Oliver Cromwell, is a big hero of Sinn Fein. "By the way, why does Moreschi have YOUR debate page tagged onto the end of his name?" If you followed the link you would have found out. I hosted an open, informal debate about POV-pushing on Wikipedia on my user pages between April and June this year. Moreschi is interested in the same topic. Why have you suddenly changed your name? I'm sure it's equally irrelevant to this AfD. --]
- Mick, I mentioned earlier in this discussion the current timeline is two merged together, one of which was simply history up to a certain point (mostly the Dark Ages) that had little to do with politics of the past two or three hundred years. Folantin, if you knew your Irish history, you'd realize that a large part of Irish republicanism was focused on anti-monarchialism, especially in its early years. The founders of the
- What exactly do ]
- Timeline of Scottish history is the format I would prefer, single line reference sentences, not some of the long paragraphs here. As for a split, given that the list was created entirely by one person, the POV issues evident in the later parts may also exist throughout, but I'm not knowledgable enough to comment with certainty. It does however give me enough pause to maintain the delete and restart view, unless anyone else can assess it and convince me otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is kept then it should at least be under a more accurate title. However, I'm not convinced that throwing together, as this list does, all political developments which might possibly have affected whether one part of the British Isles ought to be politically linked to another part of the British Isles, is a useful endeavour. Perhaps the number of events should be trimmed to only those which were genuinely significant. The biggest failing of the list is that it picks a novel way of looking at history, and so constitutes original research by synthesis. Therefore my preference is to delete it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, why hasn't anyone complained that I left out the Treason Felony Act 1848? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under History of England, I found [[16]]. Imagine that! And no, I did not provide that name to that article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge (into ]
- I've added a number of entries towards giving more balance to the last couple of centuries, including information derived from suggestions on this page (Parliament Acts, for example), for which I am grateful. Also, kudos to Dbachman for the table added to the article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Under the current title it should start when the BI became geologically identifiable surely? talk) 17:5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_timeline_of_the_British_Isles&action=edit§ion=T-19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- that's an interesting suggestion :o) --]
- It would have to start sometime after the northern and southern halves of the island of Ireland were joined together; the two are literally from separate continents. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- that's an interesting suggestion :o) --]
- CommentOr earlier than that. The removal of Political from the title introduces as many problems as it solves. That being said, the primary problems remain. First is the Celt-centric coverage. That Egbert established kingship over, attacked, and was attacked by Celts is deemed important. That he became king of Wessex? Established dominance over Kent? Irrelevant. That John became Governor of Ireland for several months is mentioned. That he ruled England during Richard's captivity, and even when he became king of England is not worthy of mention. Canute united a third of the British Isles with Denmark and Norway and received the submission of Malcolm, Macbeth, and the King of the Isles, and doesn't merit mention. The submission of the British kings to Edgar? No. These are just a few of too many examples. During periods (7th and 8th century, for example) when there are Anglo-Saxon sources of significant quality, we only hear when an Anglo-Saxon kingdom ends, or when a king attacks, is attacked by, or allies with a Celt, when every irrelevant succession to every insignificant Celtic entity is presented. We get more detail on Al-Andalus than Kent. This could be fixed, perhaps, by having someone who knows their stuff filling it out, but that would take much effort and leave it of a length unmanageable if done in the same detail as the information provided. Alternatively, it could be renamed to Timeline of Celtic Britain, sort of analogous to the equally badly executed Timeline of Iberian Muslims (or whatever they are calling it these days), but that doesn't solve the other severe problem. Much of what is shown is done with too much precision. Scholars don't even agree that there was a Battle of Camlann, let alone that it was fought in 517. The entire supposed chronology of Gwynedd is up in the air - Cadwallon of 630 may not even have been of Gwynedd at all. Later events based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can't be dated with precision because the different versions give the same events in different years (tactfully avoided for the most part by not, apparently, consulting that source). There is a lot of interesting material here, but that is all it is at present, a dump for a lot of interesting but unreferenced, unverifiable, misleadingly precise material selected with extreme bias, that to fix would make the article unmanageable and require more time and perhaps more expertise than anyone aware of the problem seems to have, and to leave it awaiting some later fix would give a naive reader a serious misconception about the subject matter. That there is a Timeline of British history already does make one wonder the purpose of this second timeline purporting to be of essentially the same thing, but to simply merge it may contaminate the other article with the problems of this one. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete very oddly named article with a very odd bias towards the end. Seems to serve no useful or encyclopaedic purpose; per nom. et al. ]
- Regarding the name "British Isles", according to Wikipedia itself at [17], the name "British Isles" only came into being into use in the first half of 19th century, after the Union of the London and Dublin Parliaments. Since we're discussing bias, can I ask why it is OK to use a term derived from the complete hegemony of the government in London over the whole archipelago rather than reverting to something more neutral? Does that mean POV bias is OK as long as it's POV bias in favor of stronger countries? Will the description "British" even be remotely accurate after Scotland becomes a regains its independence and there is no more political "Britain" from which to be "British"? When I first put this rather lengthy timeline together, the very reason I used the name "Pretannic Isles" was because that designation gives equal weight and value to all the entities within, and there were many, many more in the Dark Ages than there are now. Why is it considered a POV violation to use a term that allows for the Irish, Northeast Ulster, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Orcadian, Shetland, Channel, and Manx identities the right not to be smothered under the term "British", which to most people around the world, including the people in England, means the same thing as English? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason that it is not POV to use a term (Scotland) that smothers peoples of the kingdoms of the Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia and the Votodini under the name of an Irish tribe - because that's what it's called. The accuracy of the associations implicit in the name has nothing to do with it - just look at the West Indies, so named because someone was on the wrong side of the planet from where he thought he was. Agricolae (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia, and the Votadini don't exist anymore, so your analogy is a fallacy. And when the Scotland was first united, the monarchs did use the title Oengus mac Fergusa thru Domnall mac Causantín). After Strathclyde came under the dominion of the Kings of Alba (which is what they called themselves after 900 CE), they used the title Kings of Scots and Britons, up through the reign of Alexander III (who had that title on his seal--"Rex Scotorum et Britanniarum"). The people of Alba, Prydyn in Welsh, were quite happy to call themselves Irish apparently, since that is what is meant by Scoti, from whence "Scots" is derived, Scotland itself being derived from Scotia Minor to Ireland's Scotia Major. Speaking of Strathclyde, that name was used from 1975-1996 as a name for one of the regional council areas of Scotland. My main point was that rather than being commonly used for "hundreds of years" the name "British Isles" has only been in common use since the early 19th century. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to miss the point is spectacular. The point is that Scotland is the name of the place. Whether anyone thinks is shouldn't be called that is beside the point. We use the most common and recognised names. It does not matter whether they have been the most common for a hundred or a thousand years. "Wales" means "foreign", but we don't change the name of the article because someone might object to that fact. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one who's missing the point. The Irish, Northeast Ulsterians, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Orcadians, Shetlands, Channelers, and Manx are all peoples that still exist and I suggested that they resent being smothered under a term that to the rest of the world, and to many in England as well, is equivalent to "English". Agricola replied with a list of peoples that no longer exist being smothered under the name Scotland was the same thing; I was pointing out that it is not. I was pointing out (1) that the two are completely different because of that, and (2) restating my point that Scots, Irish, etc. are still around and the until the United Kingdom dissolves into its constituent parts and the term "British" therefore ceases to mean "English" that is is unfair to call those people by a name that means "English". Your response immediately above is the equivalent of someone from the American South complaining about switching to the use of the term African-American from Negro. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to make accusations of racism, however veiled, please don't do it here. Your extreme bias has already been made clear, so please don't labour it any more while making silly accusations. This AfD is not the place for it, and nor would I suggest is wikipedia. Also, your views of the terms English and British are incorrect both factually now, and historically. ]
- If I were going to make an accusation of racism, it wouldn't be veiled. No, what I am suggesting is hubris, which is something different and does have bearing on this discussion since the dispute over the name "British Isles" was mentioned earlier (and not by me). Yes, the terms English and British legally mean different things, but to most of the world the two are equivalent; the distinction is only assumed without specification within the United Kingdom itself. Personally, the name British Isles doesn't bother me, since "British" is ultimately derived from "Pretanic", but it does bother the Irish, a sizable section of Scots, and I'm sure a large percentage of Welsh and Cornish also; ignoring those concerns simply because the dominant population isn't affected is hubris. Also, my initial point was that the name "British Isles" was not in common use until the early 19th century rather than the "hundreds of years" claimed earlier in this discussion, and that still stands. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to make accusations of racism, however veiled, please don't do it here. Your extreme bias has already been made clear, so please don't labour it any more while making silly accusations. This AfD is not the place for it, and nor would I suggest is wikipedia. Also, your views of the terms English and British are incorrect both factually now, and historically. ]
- You're the one who's missing the point. The Irish, Northeast Ulsterians, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Orcadians, Shetlands, Channelers, and Manx are all peoples that still exist and I suggested that they resent being smothered under a term that to the rest of the world, and to many in England as well, is equivalent to "English". Agricola replied with a list of peoples that no longer exist being smothered under the name Scotland was the same thing; I was pointing out that it is not. I was pointing out (1) that the two are completely different because of that, and (2) restating my point that Scots, Irish, etc. are still around and the until the United Kingdom dissolves into its constituent parts and the term "British" therefore ceases to mean "English" that is is unfair to call those people by a name that means "English". Your response immediately above is the equivalent of someone from the American South complaining about switching to the use of the term African-American from Negro. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ability to miss the point is spectacular. The point is that Scotland is the name of the place. Whether anyone thinks is shouldn't be called that is beside the point. We use the most common and recognised names. It does not matter whether they have been the most common for a hundred or a thousand years. "Wales" means "foreign", but we don't change the name of the article because someone might object to that fact. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia, and the Votadini don't exist anymore, so your analogy is a fallacy. And when the Scotland was first united, the monarchs did use the title
- For the same reason that it is not POV to use a term (Scotland) that smothers peoples of the kingdoms of the Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia and the Votodini under the name of an Irish tribe - because that's what it's called. The accuracy of the associations implicit in the name has nothing to do with it - just look at the West Indies, so named because someone was on the wrong side of the planet from where he thought he was. Agricolae (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American Edit
- American Edit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
none charting album form a non-notable artist, no assertion of notability and no coverage in reliable sources, appears to have only been released on a personal webite, possibly a vanity piece. neon white talk 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've found some reliable sources from The San Fransisco Chronicle, NME and MTV. So it passes ]
- Keep - album has received significant coverage --T-rex 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Doc Strange - significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Cedars (band)
- The Cedars (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This band falls below our usual standards in
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NOTE. There is a high number of ghits, but nothing to establish notability. Best reference seems to be [18], which isn't enough. --AmaltheaTalk 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion Isn't Warranted
Um, if I've heard them on the radio in the United States, I think they're "notable" enough to have an article. Where do you think I came to immediately after first hearing their music? Duh, Wikipedia. I'm glad "notability" isn't a good enough yardstick to keep us from HEARING music, then there would be nothing but Britney Spears on the radio. Moreover, this is a little more than your run of the mill "bar band" that is unknown outside of its hometown (but then why would those also not be eligible for an article in the ~internet~ age? Is not the purpose of this medium to ~disseminate~ information rather than withhold it?). Moreover, I'm sure there's far more obscure topics on Wikipedia outside the category of music that even fewer people are familiar with, and yet those articles generate no controversy by their mere presence and simultaneous obscurity. I'm actually a little stunned that people actually sit around looking for stuff to DELETE from Wikipedia, rather tan ADD to. Server capacity is in the terabytes now, and text doesn't occupy much of a footprint, jeesh.Nevermind, I thought this was the band with the same name from Washington D.C. (which I could have swore had an article here before). Nevertheless, this policy seems a little overbearing. How many obscure 70's bands that are no longer around and had nearly zero fans have articles on Wikipedia?I would still think, in general, Wikipedia would embrace addition over subtraction.--]- (as a note, Biturica's opinion seems to have changed...) — Scientizzle 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and as we were editing this at the same time it seems, I had to try twice to update my opinion here.--]
- As for "addition over subtraction", I think this article is a very good example why we absolutely need inclusion criteria like ]
- (as a note, Biturica's opinion seems to have changed...) — Scientizzle 21:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he now meets
]Danijel Subotić
- Danijel Subotić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Player fails notability at
- Delete per nom. --Jimbo[online] 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's currently on loan to a first-division Belgian team, and they play what appears to be their season opener Saturday. (Unless I'm misreading the schedule.) He was supposedly loaned for the specific purpose of playing first-string in Belgium; let's see if he actually does. ]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. This article has been around for months, and based on Townlake's comments he'll very likely play a match in less than 72-hours that would make him notable. media references confirm that he's been sent to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he passes
]Christian La Torre
- Christian La Torre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Player fails notability at
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Deleteper nom. --Jimbo[online] 19:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]DeleteCurrently fails ]- Changing to keep since Jogurney has shown that La Torre passes ]
- Comment Barely makes it past CSD A7 as it stands but I'm getting a lot of gnewshits for that name[20]. I may look into this one a bit more. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can´t see any notability yet. Punkmorten (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notability at present. Artene50 (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - per BDFA.com.ar, he has played 14 times for Sport Boys in the Peruvian Primera (fully professional). I'll take a stab at cleaning up the article. Jogurney (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per information provided by Jogurney. Clearly notable with professional appearances. Nfitz (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - perhaps this nomination wasn't looked into as thoroughly as it should have. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ye Olde Times (2009 film)
- Ye Olde Times (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete per the notability guidelines for future films. Announcing a film does not mean the film will happen. No problem with recreation if filming does begin, which is never a guarantee in the industry with budget issues, scripting issues, casting issues, and strikes all realistic interferences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. Premature. Jack Black's involvement now appears to be in doubt [21]. PC78 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bring it back when closer to principle filming. Schmidt (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - future film with no refs beyond imdb --T-rex 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No guarantee that film will be made. Even if film does take place, there does not appear to be any notability in the filming of the movie itself. Per WP:NFF, the production itself must be notable to warrant the film its own article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terminate Fails notability.--SkyWalker (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted as nonsense. (Or
]Smargle
- Smargle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a random and non-notable word (that probably doesn't even exist). There's no CSD criterion that fits. ...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted as nonsense. Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hanksing
- Hanksing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. I don't know what to say except entirely NN. - Icewedge (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not urbandictionary.com --patrick.c.knight (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of sources mean that there is no verifiable information to be merged anywhere.
]Tenkaichi Budokai
- )
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Dragon Ball media articles plot sections. It is therefore entirely duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I got the notification as the creator, but I didn't actually create it (just changed the name a long time ago). But this article really looks unneeded. At best, merge some info into relevant articles (if that info isn't already there). Onikage725 (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is a completely useless, utterly pointless "guideline" (more like misguiding-line) that shouldn't have any affect. Thanos6 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a serious comment? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major part of the Dragonball setting and too large to merge. Edward321 (talk) 01:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plot summary without real-world information for a non-notable fictional event which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Out of curiosity, do you have any knowledge of the subject at hand, and if you do, would it be possible for you to make a statement that isn't complete, overused copypasta? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My statement is well-founded in Wikipedia policy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect Norse Am Legend was pointing at the second half of your statement, wondering how you prove a negative. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. The sources are the article now are all primary, and my Google search turned up nothing useful in terms of reliable sources. Based on that, I find it unlikely that reliable, non-fansite sources have ever covered this topic in detail. Ultimately though, the burden is not to prove non-notability as items are only presumed to be notable via significant coverage in secondary sources. In other words, someone needs needs to come up with good sources or the topic is presumed to be non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ]
- Delete no ]
- Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into appropriate Dragonball plot sections or articles. Gelmax (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not finding any evidence this fictional tournament has achieved notability independent of the work. As such, merge into an appropriate article about the franchise, but I leave the choice of target to those better versed in the subject. I note for the record that the franchise's articles -- I strongly suggest that this be turned over to them to execute. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okuno Ryu
- Okuno Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As noted on the talk page, Okuno Ryu is a new art. This does not waive the requirement for all articles to be about
- Delete - After a google search the only related page was this and it obviously fails notability. Sergiogr (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinjatalk 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Keep This article has references to establish the notability of the founder. If wikki would be improved by the renaming of this article, I have no objections. jmcw (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to a page for the founder, who may be notable. JJL (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion, per unanimous reasoning below. -- The Anome (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xrroid
- Xrroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can find no evidence that this term is in use outside the operations of its originator, William C. Nelson. There is a Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface device, variously called QXCI, EPFX, SCIO, which you can buy from places such as MyQuantumWellness.com who charge $21,000. You can read more about Nelson and the QXCI on Quackwatch.
Google Scholar doesn't know the "International Journal of the Medical Science of Homeopathy" which is the first reference. Nearly all its few Ghits are sellers of the QXCI/SCIO device quoting it as a reference.
The second reference is unsigned but is on the website of the "International Medical University of Natural Education" which seems to be run by Nelson (see "Journals of Dr Nelson" featured at top left of its home page).
Conclusion: this is an invented, proprietary term and is not in general use. We shouldn't be publicizing it. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete -a handful of references, but if fans of this theory insist on having an article, I insist on including quotes from the article in
- Comment "Medical Science of Homeopathy" is one of the worst oxymorons I've heard in quite a while. Exxolon (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent third-party cites to demonstrate notability, since both cites seem to be closely associated with the original source of this idiosyncratic term. Recent press coverage suggests there is probably an article to be written on the life and times of one William C. Nelson, but this isn't it. -- The Anome (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Paul B (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, suggest speedy delete, as this definition is so vague as to be almost useless at even identifying the nominal subject: minimal content and no context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
]Unfair dealing
- )
- )
No indication that the documentary (not the event it covers) is actually notable. Of the two links provided, one (Globe and Mail) covers the event, and does not mention the documentary, far as I can see. The other is to a suppost site for those in the event, hardly independant coverage. Stressing again, the notability of the event covered is not being debated, and is mostly irrelevant. It is the notability of the documentary that is the issue, and I see no indication that it is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the event this movie reenacts is still fresh in the memory of many Canadians, the movie itself is not notable. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Into The Blue 2
- )
- Delete per WP:NFF future film that has not started principle photography Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The film has wrapped, apparently [23]. PC78 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article from July 22 claims the shooting has been wrapped up. ]
- Keep. With all respect to ]
- However, the article needs sourcing to show ]
- Keep per sourcing that reflects that filming has taken place, satisfying WP:NFF concerns. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce Notley-Smith
- Bruce Notley-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Local Government Politician Sambauers (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Sambauers (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While there is scope for mayors to be notable under WP:POLITICIAN, there is little content here, either references or achievements, to suggest any sustainable notability. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mayor of a city of 125,000 seems notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT A city of 125,000 is definitely notable. Being the mayor of such a city is not inherently notable. To qualify for an article in Wikipedia, the mayor needs to be notable in his own way. Mayors come and go, and Wikipedia would have a lot of articles about former-mayors if the mayoral robes were sufficient to achieve notability. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article fails to establish that the subject is notable in accordance with the criteria specified in ]
- Delete. Neither being mayor, or owning a cleaning business, is inherently notable. Everything else I can find appears trivial. Nuttah (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of guests on Soccer AM
- List of guests on Soccer AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nn per nom. RJFJR (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. ]
- Delete non-notable PiTalk - Contribs 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not something you'd find in an encyclopedia, paper or not paper. Punkmorten (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this topic is not notable --T-rex 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. – ]
- Delete - indiscriminate and incomplete list of non-notable information. - fchd (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and delete - should be present on main article, but no way on its own. GiantSnowman 11:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ye gods, delete - I cringed even looking at the title. Brilliantine (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
]American Footvolley
- American Footvolley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is probably a hoax and definitely fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - a quick Google of it does turn up some sites, implying that it is a real sport, but the thing about the 2020 Olympics is undoubtedly false. Besides, it just seems non-notable. Alinnisawest (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that Footvolley is a real sport and turns up google hits, whereas a search for "American Footvolley" results in one site only. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to ]
- Speedy redirect/merge - I was unaware that there was already an article for footvolley, but now agree with RHaworth. Any new information can be condensed and put into the Footvolley article- I'm talking like a one-line thing of "A variation on the sport, known as American Footvolley, is played with... etc." --Alinnisawest(talk) 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not think a redirect is appropriate because we are not dealing with a fork but two separate "sports". Footvolley is a mixture of soccer and volleyball, while American Footvolley is supposed to be a mixture of American Football and volleyball. There is no use in redirecting "American Footvolley" to a page dedicate to a sport that is not inherently American. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment: NO! It's not a sport and thus should not be merged either! It does not meet WP:N, so there is only one correct action. Just because a couple of kids came up with the idea of kicking an American Football-ball (how is this thing called, I'm no American) over a volleyball net it does not have to be mentioned at Wikipedia at all. There is no variation of Footvolley: Footvolley makes sense - but how are you supposed to play a regular game if you have to kick this strangely formed object all the time? Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have played American Footvolley and I can assure you that it is a sport. If you do not believe me, you should give it a try. It is a very very new sport that was recently created. I have several college friends who also enjoy it. While there may not be much on the internet about it, I do not think this is justification to remove it from Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 21:17, August 11, 2008 — Auchris8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- comment - I had some good college friends play this game in their spare time. I am not sure if it was sanctioned by the university or if it was just a pick-up game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.185.4.67 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC) — 157.185.4.67 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete dumb college kids doing dumb college things. JuJube (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I have played this game with my friends on several occassions. It is not just a "Dumb college thing played by dumb college kids" as JuJube so notes. I think that just because you haven't tried it or haven't heard of it may mean that you need to do more research before jumping to any conclusions. It seems obvious that many users of this site are out of touch with some of younger generations. —Preceding unsigned 22:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) — Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. Gunnar Hendrich is right. The adjective "American" suggests an entirely different game, especially in an alleged hybrid of football. The article is written about a fictional sport. ]
- Delete per ]
- comment As far as the "per WP:NFT" is concerned, every single sport listed on this website began in the same manner. Someone, somewhere decided to take a ball or some other object and accomplish some goal (no pun intended) with it. At the time, most of their peers undoubtedly thought it was a dumb concept, but look who is laughing now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
- We're laughing. At you. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment As far as the comment "Gunnar Hendrich is right. The adjective "American" suggests an entirely different game, especially in an alleged hybrid of football. The article is written about a fictional sport. Hoax." It is an entirely different sport. It has nothing to do with Footvolley and should not be linked to the traditional version of the game. It was in no way modeled after or influenced by Footvolley...it just happens to share part of the name. American Footvolley gets its name from the use of the original ball (a football) and the surface it was played on (a volleyball court) and the fact that it has only been played in America so far (Hence = American Footvolley). Simple concept...really guys! It is just like Frisbee golf for example. You take a frisbee and you create "holes" like you would in golf. There is no golf ball, nor clubs, nor is it played on a golf course. You probably haven't heard of that sport either though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Regarding JuJube's comment: dumb college kids doing dumb college things. JuJube Just because the creators of this game didn't spend every moment of their college lives studying and fitting into some beauricratic mold doesn't mean that this game isn't legit. If we all took JuJube's mentality, innovation wouldn't exist and progress would simply stop. Shame on someone for thinking outside the box here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a ridiculous argument that should not be addressed. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How was it not ridiculous when you brought it up in the first place? Hypocrisy??.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
- Not getting where my hypocrisy lies. The statement that "if everyone was like me we wouldn't have progress" is what I was addressing. What are they teaching at college these days? JuJube (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How was it not ridiculous when you brought it up in the first place? Hypocrisy??.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auchris8 (talk • contribs)
- This is a ridiculous argument that should not be addressed. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The original argument is that there were no sources. There is now a link to a website to a Facebook Group page of people who enjoy this game. This is not an official organization, but it does show that it has some merit...albeit weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceclipsel (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook does not constitute a reference. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that Auchris8 (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article and the only contributions of Ceclipsel (talk · contribs) are to the article and this discussions, and their comments should be discounted as such. JuJube (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It should also be noted that JuJube has never played this game so their comments should be discounted as such.
- It should also be noted that Auchris8 (talk · contribs) is the creator of the article and the only contributions of Ceclipsel (talk · contribs) are to the article and this discussions, and their comments should be discounted as such. JuJube (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Facebook does not constitute a reference. JuJube (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope (Girl Group)
- Hope (Girl Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Singing group which appeared on a reality show and did not win, now apparently "looking for a record deal", doesn't pass
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete The article fails to establish notability of the group (it doesn't even cite anything). Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page fails ]
- Delete Non notable music group, they haven't even released an album yet. Sergiogr (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Article is badly put together, and about a girl group that have receded into obscurity, therefore, not notable. — Wiki edit Jonny (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Masculinity for boys: a guide for peer educators
- Masculinity for boys: a guide for peer educators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Ignoring any POV issues, the simple fact seems to be that this guide has sunk without trace since publication. Despite the UNESCO imprint, it has made negligible impact on Google. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and ]
- Delete Non ]
- Delete per nom. - the Ghits are practically all WP mirrors, not for this article but because this guide is listed as a reference in the article Gay. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of what the others said Stijndon (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy No encyclopedic value. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy deletion ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete per all above. ]
- Delete per Beeblbrox. Atom (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Here is a list of "worthy", independant sources that have listed the book, have praised the book or otherwise have used the book either for reference or in their work. This is what is available on the net, apart from the net, the book is used by numerous NGOs in India:
1. The Men's Bibliography: A comprehensive bibliography of writing on men, masculinities, gender, and sexualities, compiled by Michael Flood. 18th edition, 2008. Home URL: http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/)
2. Masculinity of Boy Teenager, by Triyono Lukmantoro, Ministry of Women Empowerment, Govt of Indonesia. Quote from the article: "Which boy teenager which succeed to get out from that masculine values repressive prison? Like was revealed by UNESCO—United Nation Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (New Delhi, 2006)—on long essay titled Masculinity for Boys, boy that couldn’t adopted masculinity mean: (1) would be refused his peer group, (2) would be vile by his peer, and (3) would be considered as weaker boy."
3. Yaari Dosti: Young Men Redefine Masculinity, A training Manual, Published by Population council New Delhi, CORO for Literacy, Mumbai, MAMTA, New Delhi Instituto Promundo, Rio de Janerio
4. Jagori JAGORI (meaning "awaken, woman�) is a women´s training, documentation, communication and resource centre.
5. SAATHII, CALCUTTA OFFICE, REFERENCE LIBRARY CATALOGUE SAATHI is an organisation working with Gay males.
6. UNIFEM (Masculinity (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Does Wikipedia work on mob mentality? Do you think I am UNESCO, posting this article here, selling my book? Why shouldn't I think that this book is being opposed because it challenges some very basic assumptions of the Western society, and this is just an example of Western chauvinism? I mean why would you challenge a book published by UNESCO, an international government body? Are you doubting the credibility of UNESCO?(Masculinity (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Wikipedia works by forming a rough consensus on issues. Click ]
- Are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia is going to decide things based on speculations about my motives? And why this need for suspicion? Come on this is a UNESCO guide. It has been verified by various independant sources. UNESCO is using this book in its programmes in various countries. That is all that is of relevance here.
- There is an unnecessarily intense resistance from certain organised powerful forces in the West from giving validity to anything that doesn't fit in with its view of things. And this is bothersome on a site like Wikipedia. I mean would you have resisted UNESCO if it published a report on "Gays in India"? Because that fits in very well with how Westerners would like to see things. (59.180.159.62 (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- So is there any mechanism through which you can stop cultural hegemony by powerful western groups, that do not want anything that goes against how they would like to see this world to be given any space at all? I mean what are you going to say about all the independant websites i have quoted that have either referenced or listed this book. Is there going to be a rule neutrally applied or is it going to be mob wins (Masculinity (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, I think you are wildly exaggerating the reasons this article is here at AfD, for starters. There is not a ]
- The link you provided for "notability" says - "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice." So, all these people really think that "Masculinity for boys" is not a topic that is worthy of notice? There must be something about it that an organisation like UNESCO published it and has been listing it at several places and has been using it in several of its programmes. Do you think an organisation like UNIFEM or Jagori or SAATHI would list just any book. My organisation used the book in my counselling sessions in India, and I know of several reputed international as well as local organisations that do too. In fact UNESCO has also printed posters on this book/ issue that is widely distributed in India. How can it be a trivial thing for you? Masculinity itself is a hot topic in the West as well as on Wikipedia. It's an extremely important issue for boys and men all over -- their most important issue. Do you think a book on a non-western discourse on it from a reputable source such as UNESCO is going to be harmful or immaterial? This book is not for sale. I don't think there are any copies left even with UNESCO. So there is no question of anyone getting publicity or advertising for free. This information has been included here because it is being used considerably widely in intervention work in India with men, and is one of the few works on the subject in the Indian sub-continent.(Masculinity (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- And when you can back up those assertions with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, there won't be any question of it's notability. That is the standard, and simply stating the reasons why you believe it to be notable does not help if you don't have the sources. Our own observations, right or wrong, cannot be the basis for content. ]
- So is there any mechanism through which you can stop cultural hegemony by powerful western groups, that do not want anything that goes against how they would like to see this world to be given any space at all? I mean what are you going to say about all the independant websites i have quoted that have either referenced or listed this book. Is there going to be a rule neutrally applied or is it going to be mob wins (Masculinity (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep A editor above has provided 6 references to show the notability of this UNESCO intervention in the field of sex education. Its apparent non-notability can be explained by one simple fact: it is an Asian book. Resources such as Google are heavily US/western biased (and, despite an official policy to avoid this, so is the Wikipedia). Look at the various publications in Category:Sex education to give a context. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes, but, as I explained above, those links may verify the existence of this publication, but there is not anything significant said about the publication. Also links 3,5,and6 are broken, so I have no idea what they might say. ]
- Here are some more links i found on the net, plus the broken links resurrected:
- UNESCO Bangkok This is a site of UNESCO Bangkok. It lists the book amongst significant developments of UNESCO.
- Yaari Dosti: Young Men Redefine Masculinity A Training Manual This 110 page report from Population council New Delhi, CORO for Literacy, Mumbai, MAMTA, New Delhi Instituto Promundo, Rio de Janerio and supported by innumerous international organisations, including, Horizons, USAID, Mc Arthur Foundation, and many more, used this book as one of its references, in its training manual designed for working with young men.
- SAATHI The book is amongst the few books the library has under the section Gender.
- The NAZ Foundation International, The book is listed under: Gender Studies/ Masculinities.
- International Catholic Centre for Cooperation with UNESCO, [email protected], www.ccic-unesco.org
- Portal Duniaguru Unknown site and language. But the book is used as a reference.(Masculinity (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as fork. the reason we can't allow forks is because the history of the article remains at the parent article and the fork is therefore not GFDL compliant. There clearly is an article to be written here - but not this one.
]British Organized Crime
- British Organized Crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Copied from Gangs in the United Kingdom StaticGull Talk 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gangs in the United Kingdom. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unwaranted ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with a note about the copying and a request for expert attention. Grounds: 1) the subject is highly encyclopaedic and clearly merits an article; and 2) WP:AGF together with the recent creation date suggests we should assume the article was copied so as to get the formatting right for later editing, rather than with any ill intent.--Alternatively keep with blanked content as redirect to Organized crime. Either way, I'm convinced AFD is the wrong place to handle this.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if kept it should be retitled to Organised crime in the United Kingdom) to remove the unnecessary capitals and conform to British spelling. Grutness...wha? 01:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethics and Public Policy Center
- Ethics and Public Policy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. No secondary sources cited. A Yahoo search only turns up a few mentions in directories and so forth. Borock (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: only citation is to topic's website's 'About' page. Thus no evidence that it meets ]
- Addendum: the deleted material was unsourced and was not extensive. The Google News/Books coverage appears to make only trivial mentions of EPPC. Nothing that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" (per WP:NOTE), and so no solid basis for a good article. Confirm delete. HrafnTalkStalk 04:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: the deleted material was unsourced and was not extensive. The Google News/Books coverage appears to make only trivial mentions of EPPC. Nothing that "address[es] the subject directly in detail" (per
- Delete: Looks like a data sheet.--Puttyschool (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to meet notability, in my opinion. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Abundant coverage found in Google News and Google Books. Edit history also indicates removal of content. Controversial and poorly written, but ]
- Keep per Gene93k. Lots of stuff on their fringe views of science and politically driven activity into Clinton-Whitewater. ]
- I added another reference to the article. The coverage is still kind of slim, but maybe okay for an article if we are not being all that strict about WP's official standards. Borock (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I certainly think it is notable to know about crazy religous people and their fellowships. --Law Lord (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Jhon Minths
- Richard Jhon Minths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A real or imagined person of this name (more or less) first came to my attention in this bizarre edit. The latest of several articles on him (its predecessors were deleted) tells us that he's flying around the world to take shots of must see for a leading fashion magazine in Japan. The magazine is alas unspecified. And that's not all: he can speak four languages: English, Spanish, French,Korean and Japanese. Yeah, right. Evidence please. Hoary (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition This particular article on Minths was created by SPA "Dumbassador", who hasn't yet quite managed to get a picture of R J Minths on his user page. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is unsourced, even if Mr Minths is (maybe) a real person. Borock (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 Speedy delete Total spam, just a MySpace page on Wikipedia, and they spelled his middle name wrong in the title, that's a clue. ]
- Delete vain vanity in vain. He also can't count. JuJube (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, even if he's not a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as ]
- Delete - so he speaks four languages, of which there are five? That would be notable, except that it's a typo. :-) AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as A7 (web). - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adult hosting
- Adult hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable enough for own article, merge at best. StaticGull Talk 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as blatant, if incompetent, advertising Mayalld (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 12:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John G. West
- John G. West (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. The only sources for the information about him come from himself or his employers. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a report about a debate he took part in from a reliable source. There is also a report on the same thing from a blog. That plus the books he wrote probably make him notable enough for WP. Borock (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: his role in founding the Center for Science and Culture gets solid mention in both The Creationists (the 'gold standard' in scholarship on Creationism) and in Creationism's Trojan Horse. He was recently selected to be one of the opponents providing "critical commentaries" to the latest edition of Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism.[24] More peripherally, he has frequently acted as a spokesman for the Discovery Institute in its controversies over the years (as this Google News search demonstrates). HrafnTalkStalk 15:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep – per WP:ATD, verification is now in the process of being provided for a notable "design proponent". . . dave souza, talk 17:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources look valid to me, article is compiled and appears to have notability well in hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of sources. ]
- Keep Several independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No need for a long AfD debate on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balázs Gulyás
- Balázs Gulyás (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The page already exists. StaticGull Talk 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that there are two pages about the same person? If so, ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IndRA region
- IndRA region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
None of the provided sources use "IndRA". StaticGull Talk 13:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete Besides the article contradicts itself, first it says IndRA is a geographic area then a political/economic partnership. Iran, Pakistan, and others might feel left out. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan is part of IndRA - cinsidered part of "Arabia." Sources now provided using "IndRA." Thank you for the feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilmarch (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 August 2008
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was this subject wasn't sufficiently
]IGGY Summer U
- IGGY Summer U (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn event Mayalld (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just a report on an event, although it sounds like it went well. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Keep I have edited it to describe the programme in general. When selected for deletion, I had not finished editing the page, and do not intend it to be all about the 2008 event. There is an entire programme which will run into the foreseeable future, not just a one-off event, and people might want to know about it. Liony (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whether about one event, or the series of events, this is not notable Mayalld (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Mayalld's previous comment. Unless or until notability is established, it should not be an article. Also, the article should be completed in a sandbox before being moved to mainspace. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No signifigant coverage in ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable journalist who has created about 8 articles about himself under different titles. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Javed Aziz Khan (Pakistan)
- Javed Aziz Khan (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Exact copy of Javed Aziz Khan (Terrorism Analyst) StaticGull Talk 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, one of several by this guy. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Javed Aziz Khan (Peshawar)
- Javed Aziz Khan (Peshawar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Exact copy of Javed Aziz Khan (Terrorism Analyst) StaticGull Talk 12:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no context, a3 no substantive content, g1 nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIWATTLE
- WIKIWATTLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kerang Football Club
- Kerang Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable amateur and minor
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this grand ol' gang. no assertion of notability. Gnangarra 13:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Er, they didn't even try. Not notable. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I can't find any independent sources except one article about a player transfer. Reyk YO! 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article tells us nothing, so is of no worth.--Lester 06:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article discloses nothing much about the Club, certainly nothing notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of sporting clubs. Clubs of this kind can be listed in WP articles devoted to the league in which they participate, or the sporting code. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn, per [25]. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diary of a Teenage Girl
- Diary of a Teenage Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails the
- OK, the references below look good to me (hopefully they actually make it into the article ;), but I don't know if I can withdraw this nomination as I wasn't the editor who originally prodded it... Somno (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please note, per WP:N and WP:BK having reviews counts as sources.
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10676869_ITM
- http://books.google.com/books?id=sHpBFqfSIr0C&pg=PA95&dq=%22Diary+of+a+Teenage+Girl%22+Melody+Carlson&ei=d0CgSLLdDoL2iQG7hZ36BA&sig=ACfU3U2DGQaD5qZseGCXYCTjmtB46d1j9A,
- http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-675822_ITM look fine. In addition, there are a number of books and articles about this out there. Not all of them will be great sources for this article, but notability seems clear to me. Hobit (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the second link's about the author and only mentions the book in passing? I suggest that's added as a reference to the author's page - she's definitely notable, but not necessarily her books. Do the book reviews have more content than just a plot summary? Somno (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No details on the reviews, but given the sources I'd have to say they will have actual commentary. I only spent a few minutes on this. Given the raw number of hits on this (and books that discuss theses books) I strongly suspect the series is notable. Each book, probably not. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And: http://thebestreviews.com/review17341 looks good too. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does it matter if reviews are user-generated like this one (where anyone can post a review) or do they have to be published/literary reviews? It seems that a person could fill out several reviews like this on this site, amazon.com, etc. to generate as many "reviews" it takes to become "notable." I do not believe that is the case with this specific review, but it seems there'd be a higher standard than this. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those are not reviews. The first and third link are plot summaries. The second mentions the author/series in passing. Still researching to determine my position on notability though. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://thebestreviews.com/review17341 does look good though, and it looks like a site with editorial oversight. Hobit (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Here are some reliable sources that provide EBSCOdatabase using my local public libraries web site. Perhaps the author of this article could get a list of the books in the series into the article?
- Jones, Trevelyn E. et al. "It's My Life by Caitlin O'Connor (Book Review)." School Library Journal 47, no. 6;Abstract:Reviews the book `It's My Life by Caitlin O'Conner,' by Melody Carlson.
- Riess, Jana. "ON MY OWN (Book)." Publishers Weekly 249, no. 24 (June 17, 2002): S22; Abstract:Reviews the book 'On My Own,' by Melody Carlson.
- Beck, Linda et al. "On My Own (Book)." School Library Journal 48, no. 9 (September 2002): 220; Abstract:Reviews the book 'On My Own: By Caitlin O'Conner,' by Melody Carlson.
- Lamb, Holly Ward. "Finding God's Way." Voice of Youth Advocates 26, no. 5 (December 2003): 384-385; Abstract: Reviews the book "On My Own," by Melody Carlson.
- "Books in Brief." Publishers Weekly 255, no. 22 (June 02, 2008): S9-S9.;Abstract: The article reviews several books including "The Rook," by Steven James, "A Not-So-Simple Life," by Melody Carlson and "Love Tornado," by Mable John and David Ritz.
- Miller, Heather E. et al. "Just Ask." School Library Journal 51, no. 12 (December 2005): 142-142; Abstract:The article reviews the book "Just Ask," by Melody Carlson. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep good job captain tucker. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. Much nicer than what I found. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Captain Tucker's sources trump any claims of non-notability. 23skidoo (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep While I have my doubts on some of the other sources as being valid for use by an encyclopedia, the Publishers' Weekly review swings my !vote. Brilliantine (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Captain Tucker. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gating (punishment)
- Gating (punishment) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- Keep - I've heard of this, and I'm reasonably sure that sources can be found. Classic English boarding-school fiction, perhaps? Memoirs? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Somewhat notable topic, but I can't find many reliable sources. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just a reminder that this article has been marked unsourced for over two years. If editors at this AFD cannot find any sources (and I can't myself) then your recommendation should not be "keep and find sources" but "delete". ]
- Keep
- I'm certain there are more. Folks, this took 3-5 minutes to find. Please spend a few minutes doing a news/books/web search before you nom/!vote. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per references above. Thanks for the effort Hobit. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hobit. --S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - rather well-known but mildly archaic concept here. Clean it up, sure - but it has to stay. Brilliantine (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've ignored the Kerkill as illegible. Synergy 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Maisenberg
- Oleg Maisenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there's a lot of News hits for him unfortunately a lot are in pay-per-view or need translation [26]. NYT reviews are the most accessible I've found so far [27], [28] subject is clearly notable and content appears able to be verified -Hunting dog (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per hunting dog.]
- Keep same as the previous AfD by Stifle, do some research before assuming there's nothing out there. Rather than deleting b/c it isn't referenced, perhaps provide the reference instead. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why to Keep, it is unreferenced for over two years --Puttyschool (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a policy that says two years unreferenced = delete? The fact of the matter is that deletion is easier than citing, but if there is a legitimate claim to notability then they should be kept for their encyclopedic value. The person who notices the lack of reference would be more constructive to the WP Community by finding the references and citing it than simply by deleting it. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerkill per WP:V. --]
- Keep half a minute on Amazon brings up 38 recordings with which he's involved as soloist, named performer or subject. Here he is reviewed at classicstoday.com (who admittedly refer to him as a "sort-of-famous" artist); here he is on the cover of Steinway's own magazine in Austria. I found these refs in less than 2 minutes and will add to the article when and if time allows, but as an actively recording classical soloist and practising music academic I can't see how he could possibly not satisfy ]
- Keep, article has been improved and sourced WRT nom, passes ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Gallagher (radio presenter)
- Martin Gallagher (radio presenter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hardly looks like a serious article.... --Crusio (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per above. ]
- Delete, despite his stunning success in being voted the sexiest man of Marshall, TX, when he was only 14, twelve years before he even moved there. -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - not a thing in the stub that even asserts notability. Session musicians are ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep, no longer unreferenced and no deletion recommendations.
]Jet-CD
- )
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- weak keep likely notable. Brittanica (yes, the encyclopedia) says "In their first five years, Puffy sold more than 14 million CDs in Japan alone. Their albums Jet CD (1998) and Fever Fever (1999) were regarded as J-pop classics." Sources most likely not in English. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Brittanica quote cited above is enough to verify that the group did put out an album of this name, and that's just about all that's that needs direct verification -- the rest of this extremely stubby article being details that can be cited to the album itself. Based entirely on the nominating rationale, that makes this a keep. (I note the main notability, they might get somewhere, but given that Ye Olde Brittanica deigns to notice the album, I think we can presumptively assume notability, so also keep on that argument. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since so many folks want Wikipedia to be a clone of Brittanica, Britannica is pretty much the epitome of a reliable source. Seriously, though, releases by major musical groups are notable. And Brittanica can even be used as a reliable source for citing the opinion of the album in question being considered a classic, too. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. #1 ranked album, which is also already mentioned in the Japanese-lang wiki if anyone is inclined to look. Neier (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added that reference to the article, which as it also happens to verify the album is by the artist, explicitly negates the nominating rationale. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jet upset
- )
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- keep
- Term appears to be defined here: http://books.google.com/books?id=MpUgAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22Jet+upset&ei=RUagSPbRNIryiwGP67H7BA, but I can't see the definition. Same with the book Iraq, Lies, Cover-ups, And Consequences which defines and discusses the term.
- It also appears to see a fair bit of use. http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Jet%20upset&sa=N&tab=np. Hobit (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above (again)... This is getting silly. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- obvious redirect to Aviation accidents and incidents as it is a neologism/comparatively far less often used term for exactly the same subject matter -[29] over 3000 news stories for 'aviation accident' as compared to 27 for 'jet upset'.[30] Sticky Parkin 19:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 'jet upset' and an 'aviation accident and incident' are NOT the same thing. Many accidents/incidents have nothing to do with jet upsets, it would be very confusing to link the two.
]- Strong Keep - nothing to do with aviation accidents other than as a possible cause. Well-known phenomenon amongst anyone who flies jets. Describes a marked attitude and/or altitude excursion caused by the aircraft going out of trim, autopilot problem or insentitive use of controls (especially rudder) at high speed. Also have found a reference: Brian Moynahan, Airport International, Published by Pan 1978, p184. Brilliantine (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well stated. Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the article again, it needs a lot of cleanup. It seems to describe only one possible type of jet upset. Brilliantine (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then a cleanup tag should be included, but it shouldn't be removed. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite agree, and am standing by my !vote. Brilliantine (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then a cleanup tag should be included, but it shouldn't be removed. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
]List of socialists from Eastern Europe
- List of socialists from Eastern Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that sources are not given runs into problems with WP's policies on biographies of living persons. The same information could be given more easily with categories for socialists from each nation. Then the facts could be checked on each person's article. Borock (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list as it stands now is useless. To be kept it should at minimum tell us more about who these persons were and why they are on the list. Punkmorten (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David Witko
- David Witko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This appears to be about an utterly undistinguished and non-notable male model. Grahame (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Autobiographical article. Article does not establish notability against criterion in WP:BIO. Looks like self-promotion for business purposes. Dolphin51 (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. Brilliantine (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Maybe he's a "hot babe", as the article claims, but he's definitely not notable.--Lester 06:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus agreed with the nomination - the subject could be managed better using a category. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nigerian Players Abroad
- )
Unmaintainable list, which already exists as a category. Simply not needed. Was prodded, but removed by article creator without rationale. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per many other Fooian Players Abroad like it before. Apart from the thoroughly legitimate reasons given above, it does not specify what they play, and the word abroad is subjective: a Nigerian player, of any sport, in Nigeria is abroad as far as I am concerned. Kevin McE (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we likewise be considering Iraqi football players abroad, List of Salvadoran football players playing abroad, List of Scottish football players playing abroad and Thai footballers abroad? Kevin McE (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and agree with Kevin McE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikikid (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep with a renaming for clarity 'List of Nigerian football players currently playing in foriegn leagues' or similar. It can easily be, and in fact is, sourced. --neon white talk 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 200 lists of footballers from x country playing abroad is a little over the top, so delete and let it live on as a category. Punkmorten (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep all without prejudice to merging and renominating unnecessary pages after the merge is completed. The nomination of everything related brings the complex issue of considering a merge to Afd, which is not the right forum. Take it to a central talk page, and slowly work out the right solution. ]
Neuro-linguistic programming
- Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article (and the set of articles linked to it) should be deleted because
- It is promotional material for what is essentially a brand or product. NLP is not an academic subject, and there is no university that I know of that teaches NLP as a subject (there are institutions without academic charters that teach NLP for accreditation purposes, for a fee, but that does not make it an academic subject).
- The related pages, which attempt to pass off NLP as an academic subject, are devoid of any intellectual content whatsoever.
- The NLP article itself is now being used outside Wikipedia to promote NLP as a serious scientific subject, for financial gain.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e. blatant advertising of a commercial, pseudoscientific 'therapy').
- )
- Research on NLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- As-if (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Positive and negative (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Anchoring (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- )
- History of neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- Representational systems (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Strategy (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Well-formed outcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- Milton model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- )
- Neurosemantics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Neurological levels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- )
- Persuasion uses of NLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Submodality (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Therapeutic use of Neuro-linguistic programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meta-programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Meta-model (NLP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peter Damian (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the explosion of sub-pages related to aspects of NLP need to be curtailed as they attempt to pass off NLP as a scientific discipline, when in fact they are little more than abridgments of book chapters by NLP's creators and their followers. They are written as if the techniques and observations espoused are scientific facts, without any reference to articles in peer-reviewed journals to support those 'facts'. The sub-sections notwithstanding, I would support the existence of a single article on NLP, provided of course that it conformed to the usual expectations. Poltair (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with this but wasn't sure how to propose this within the AfD framework. Yes. Delete the plethora of related articles, substantially rewrite the existing article to place it in context, i.e. as having a certain history (some of it within academia), but now entirely discredited within academia but a notable industry, particularly in the world of business and leadership 'training'. Agree. Peter Damian (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except the main NLP article as per Peter Damian's excellent rationale and Poltair's suggestion. I see no evidence that the sub-articles have any notability or significance of their own. naerii 11:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP main NLP article -- The topic is definitely noteworthy (whatever one thinks of the merits or lack thereof of NLP itself). Don't really have time to look at all the other sub-article pages... AnonMoos (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep main article, merge some of sub articles NLP is a worthy entry into Wikipedia. The sub pages are more "how-to" and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What Wikipedia is not: a promotional vehicle for dubious therapeutic and self-help material masquerading as science. Enough of this free advertising. Peter Damian (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all articles, but for WP:FRINGE science or pseudoscience, they should be in the pseudoscience category and this noted prominently in each article, with suitable references. Deleting them does not improve the encyclopedia and is decidedly a bad idea.--Filll (talk | wpc) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem with this is that many of the subarticles invoke genuine scientific ideas in an attempt to make the main subject 'respectable'. E.g. in the Submodality (NLP) article, it says "A submodality in neuro-linguistic programming is a distinction of form or structure (rather than content) within a sensory representational system. For example, regardless of the content, both external and mental images of any kind will be either colored or monochrome, and stationary or moving. These parameters are submodalities within the visual sense. Similarly, both remembered and actual sounds will be mono or stereo when experienced internally, so mono/stereo is a submodality of sound." This is not entirely incorrect, so it follows NPOV. But this makes NLP seem like science, when the main principles of NLP, such as they are, are not science at all. I'm afraid you may be one of the many people who have been fooled by this bunk-passing-itself-off-as science. I don't have the time to go through all this rubbish myself, so would prefer to delete. (Another reason for not getting involved beyond deletion is that the list of users who have been banned or blocked for trying to impose NPOV is long and large. I do not want to end up in that particular dustbin. Peter Damian (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sure it's all bunk, but it's notable bunk. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mind the bunk, e.g. if it is crystals or ghosts, but this is bunk passing itself off as science. I'm not sure how you would keep many of these articles, which are purely there to impart a scientific veneer to NLP, without just deleting all of them. Let me find some examples. Peter Damian (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- close this AfD nothing is achieved in my experience by bundling articles with highly varied degrees of notability. NLP is (unfortunately IMHO) an obvious keep, the others need to be considered on their own merits or when you make a bundle on AfD, choose articles with similar levels of non-notability. I happen to vaguely know of the subject and think a couple of the others may also be notable, but would need to see them discussed individually or as a more manageable group. 'Promotional' is not an argument for deletion in a WP:RS subject- it's grounds for a rewrite or possible Arbcom on the subject area. Sticky Parkin 12:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the highly varied degrees of notability that's the problem. It's simply that the whole thing is a steaming pile of horse manure. It has to go. The problem I now see is that people don't have enough knowledge of the subject to 'delete'. A thought-experiment. A series of articles on astral projection, or crystal healing, claiming WP:RS or whatever, and people vote 'not the right way of going about this' because they claim not to know enough about crystal healing or astral projection. Peter Damian (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep main article, delete most of sub articles, main article to be subject to heavy editing to remove promotional material and false claims. Peter is right, this is peddling pseudo-science and is in the main mis-representation. --Snowded TALK 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Close this AFD per parkin. This is not the best way to go about this.]
- Close this AFD - This is not the best way to go about this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? It's all complete garbage, it has to go. How else do we do it? Or to turn your question around, what is the best way of getting rid of this pseudoscientific bullshit? Peter Damian (talk) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I also agree with Sticky Parkin. A note: That something is commercial does not in and of itself bar having an article on it (at least not yet... and hopefully never... It may not be CAPITALISED the correct way, but there will be an article. :) ). But I do think there are many many more articles than we really need. Keep all, Delete all, Merge all but the main... those are all too coarse grained answers. The right answer, I think, would be for an article by article review, with an eye to merging as much as possible. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tishlegig
- Tishlegig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested Prod, Non-notable. Google has one hit other than this wikipedia article, http://wikivotr.com/newarticles.php. It is a direct copy of the information on that page. While removing the Prod, 3 external links were added, but none of them had any reference to Tishlegig. Jons63 (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless any evidence is produce to show that it exists. PamD (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sean McMillion
- )
Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability in the article at all. Even if it is confirmed that he is dating Monique Alexander, her notability does not transfer to him. The article would need to show that he is notable independent of her. Jons63 (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily Deleted as a blatant violation of copyright. WilliamH (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rena Shereshevskaya
- Rena Shereshevskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not assert notability. No news hits, either.
- Delete - some Ghits but mostly Youtube and the like - not enough for notability per ]
- Delete per nom Artene50 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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've ignored the Kerkill as illegible. Synergy 12:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oleg Maisenberg
- Oleg Maisenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced for over two years, fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there's a lot of News hits for him unfortunately a lot are in pay-per-view or need translation [31]. NYT reviews are the most accessible I've found so far [32], [33] subject is clearly notable and content appears able to be verified -Hunting dog (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per hunting dog.]
- Keep same as the previous AfD by Stifle, do some research before assuming there's nothing out there. Rather than deleting b/c it isn't referenced, perhaps provide the reference instead. Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why to Keep, it is unreferenced for over two years --Puttyschool (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a policy that says two years unreferenced = delete? The fact of the matter is that deletion is easier than citing, but if there is a legitimate claim to notability then they should be kept for their encyclopedic value. The person who notices the lack of reference would be more constructive to the WP Community by finding the references and citing it than simply by deleting it. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerkill per WP:V. --]
- Keep half a minute on Amazon brings up 38 recordings with which he's involved as soloist, named performer or subject. Here he is reviewed at classicstoday.com (who admittedly refer to him as a "sort-of-famous" artist); here he is on the cover of Steinway's own magazine in Austria. I found these refs in less than 2 minutes and will add to the article when and if time allows, but as an actively recording classical soloist and practising music academic I can't see how he could possibly not satisfy ]
- Keep, article has been improved and sourced WRT nom, passes ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Villarreal
- Michael Villarreal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
notability Robininacage (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Skater passes WP:RS available to verify. This amateur athlete competes at the national and international level. Good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the highest level of the sport would be a international senior championship, in which he has never competed. National level and/or age-specific level is not enough. Punkmorten (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Notable. Nominated by single-purpose accout, too. To Karl Schaefer Memorial is a senior-level international competition. Kolindigo (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wouldn't object to further tightening up the standard of notability for figure skaters, as we have many other articles about skaters with similar levels of achievement who are unlikely to be considered notable in the sport even 10 years from now, much less 100 years from now. But I see no reason to pick on Villarreal, inconsistent with the existing standard of notability that applies to all those other skaters. Dr.frog (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which will default to keep. Its evident from the discussion below that the article can use some work, namely with some more sources, so lets work on that. One thing is for certain though, and that is there is no consensus to delete the article. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2006 Winter Olympics highlights
- )
An article for the 2006 Winter Olympics already exists. Individual pages for the different sports already exist. A highlights article is not necessary, nor is it encyclopedic. Highlighting individual elements of such a large event generates problems with NPOV. Additionally it is inconsistent with MOS and with the articles for previous Olympic games and other athletic events. Article has no references and duplicates information from previously mentioned articles.
]Please see ]
- Delete as nominator. ]
- Since you're the nominator, it's pretty obvious that you want to delete this. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nominated purely out of spite of being taunted on the nomination of the same user's nomination of the ]
- It's nominated for the same reason the 2008 highlights page is. It duplicates information in a manner that is simply not necessary. If you're identifying your contributions as taunting, then perhaps you should not participate in Afd debates.]
- Comment The 2008 highlights were kept. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nominated for the same reason the 2008 highlights page is. It duplicates information in a manner that is simply not necessary. If you're identifying your contributions as taunting, then perhaps you should not participate in Afd debates.]
- The other discussion was closed as the article was then linked from the main page, not as a result of the discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge. This article gives a more detailed overview of the events of the games than what is shown on the main article. This information should be kept, whether on this page or the other, and should be revised to the encyclopedic standards that have been set over the first few days of coverage at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights.
- The details are already present in the articles for the individual sports. This page does not provide appropriate organization for the information.]
- How is its organisation inappropriate? Sometimes we need more details than would be reasonable on the main article, yet less detail than is on the individual sports articles. This article is such a case. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The details are already present in the articles for the individual sports. This page does not provide appropriate organization for the information.]
- Keep Useful. Nominator is on an "deletion-spree". ]
- Nominator is not on a deletion-spree. ]
- Personal attacks aside, (and yes referring to someone or their conduct in a disparaging manner is a personal attack) useful isn't a terribly compelling argument to keep an article. "Useful" doesn't cut it when an article is up for deletion. I might find that keep my family tree on wikipedia is "useful" for myself and my extended family but that doesn't mean it is going to stick around. If you'd like to give some policy based reason on why you feel this article doesn't violate the reason for nomination please do so.--]
- Delete per nom. Who says that these were the Games' highlights? - no sources at all are provided, and as such it seems to be a form of OR. ]
- Keep. This format is a useful way of organizing a large amount of information in a reader-friendly format. Nick, the tag you're thinking of then is {{]
- Comment No I'm not: I'm thinking of {{]
- Since when does
{{
OR}} = AfD? You want to delete an article based on its title? What have we come to? Think of a better name, do not delete. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the foundation for the article is based in it. It is a fancy name for a list, and when the criteria is described in such a way that invites editors to partake in OR and NPOV considerations to cherry pick content, the list is inappropriate and should be deleted.--]
- Since when does
- Comment Actually, shouldn't the fact that "thousands of sports writers around the world produce lists of highlights" make it easier to develop a list of generally accepted highlights? If there are thousands of websites covering the Olympics and they virtually all lead their daily news coverage with a few particular Olympic events and records, shouldn't it be much more acceptable of producing a similar list here? Timbouctou (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)I don't quite see how a multitude of relevant sources will result in an inability to cite an article. And {{Talk:2008 Summer Olympics highlights on where to draw the line for inclusion, and I imagine that there will continued discussion and pruning of content. If the fundamental objection here is that the article requires editorial judgment and is therefore "NPOV", I wish to point out that editorial judgment is valued in writing, not derided. I don't know any editor who doesn't make decisions on what is and isn't important all the time. - BanyanTree 09:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Each medal is a highlight for someone, so by being selective in listing these without a judicious amount of sourcing that influential commentators believe such and such an event is a highlight, the article fundamentally violates overt cultural bias against non-English-speaking nations. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at 2008 Summer Olympics highlights standards? If the answer to both of these is less than an absolute "no", then this AFD is a misguided attempt to nuke an article that needs some attention. - BanyanTree 09:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bias isn't a reason for deletion. Only if the bias is unfixable is it sufficient rationale. Consider, for example, Rwanda. This article has significant systemic bias, since very few Wikipedians are Rwandan, but it's still worthy of inclusion. Given enough work, we can fix the bias. That's not possible if the article gets deleted. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There cannot be a way of making this article unbiased without it becoming much closer to 2006 Winter Olympics medal count, which it would largely duplicate. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There cannot be a way of making this article unbiased without it becoming much closer to
- Delete I appreciate the "usefulness" of this article, but any list (which this is) that forms criteria that are essentially editors opinion on whether or not something is a highlight is original research. It is asking editors to put forth a theory that the tidbit they want to add is notable, or more notable than another tidbit. Wikipedia is also not a news site, which this amounts to. This type of page is much more suited to wikinews.--]
- Keep. As with the 2008 games discussion, I agree that the title of this article could be seen as NPOV-violating. So give it a better title (just be sure to rename related articles for consistency). As for the article itself, I find it perfectly viable as a way of condensing a major worldwide event. If any of the events listed here never happened, then remove them, of course. Otherwise I don't see the problem. 23skidoo (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its already condensed in medal listings and various records listing. I believe articles exist for both of those things.--]
- Strong keep. AfD is not Wikipedia's cleanup department. Also, when the article is getting really really long, as in the case of 2006 Winter Olympics, you can create sub-articles like this one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You see inherent policy violation as clean-up?--]
- No, he sees this article as worthy for inclusion. History of Lithuania has POV issues, but isn't eligible for deletion. When an article has problems with NPOV, it should be marked for cleanup, not deleted as a knee-jerk reaction. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because the history of lithuania isn't an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "highlights of hte history of lithuania" it would be.--]
- But consider this (by consider I mean that you actually think about it). History of Lithuania is not an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "Highlights of the history of Lithuania"; yes, it would be flawed. But the exact same article would be inherently flawed under those conditions; that is, if I were to move History of Lithuania to Highlights of the history of Lithuania, the article would have these "inherent flaws" you mention. The exact same article. Yet the article obviously does not have those flaws in its current form. So it was the act of moving the article that created the "inherent flaws". In its current form (and in any reasonable alternate), History of Lithuania is a "highlights article". If a user wants to read about the history of Lithuania in general, they go to that article. If they want to read about a specific event in the history of Lithuania, they can either read the main article and look for a mention of it, or they can go to the specific article on the topic. By your definition of "inherently flawed", it could be argued that perhaps over half of the information on Wikipedia, even including FAs, is "inherently flawed" and must be deleted. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've considered it. This page is essentially a list, and the title sets the criteria for the list. That is what makes it inherently flawed. Now, we could simply remove highlights from the title, because that is what makes it inherently flawed, but then we already have ]
- But it's absolutely ridiculous to delete something because there are too many sources. Choosing what's a highlight cannot really be considered original research. That's just categorising information. Additionally, you just admitted that the title is what makes it flawed. But is anyone really going to care what we call highlights? If we just list events with significant media mention, as well as medals and records, we can get enough coverage to reasonably term it "highlights". Anyway, if the title is the problem, why not change the title? Why are all of the deletionists here putting so much effort into trying to get this article deleted when the only problem is the title? Also, most news sources do refer to certain events as highlights. They might not publish their criteria for those, but the lists of published highlights allow us to come up with some general criteria for what's a highlight. If you have a personal vendetta against the word "highlight", why not just come up with a new name? It'd be far easier than getting this article deleted. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've considered it. This page is essentially a list, and the title sets the criteria for the list. That is what makes it inherently flawed. Now, we could simply remove highlights from the title, because that is what makes it inherently flawed, but then we already have ]
- But consider this (by consider I mean that you actually think about it). History of Lithuania is not an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "Highlights of the history of Lithuania"; yes, it would be flawed. But the exact same article would be inherently flawed under those conditions; that is, if I were to move History of Lithuania to Highlights of the history of Lithuania, the article would have these "inherent flaws" you mention. The exact same article. Yet the article obviously does not have those flaws in its current form. So it was the act of moving the article that created the "inherent flaws". In its current form (and in any reasonable alternate), History of Lithuania is a "highlights article". If a user wants to read about the history of Lithuania in general, they go to that article. If they want to read about a specific event in the history of Lithuania, they can either read the main article and look for a mention of it, or they can go to the specific article on the topic. By your definition of "inherently flawed", it could be argued that perhaps over half of the information on Wikipedia, even including FAs, is "inherently flawed" and must be deleted. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because the history of lithuania isn't an inherently flawed article. If it were titled "highlights of hte history of lithuania" it would be.--]
- No, he sees this article as worthy for inclusion. History of Lithuania has POV issues, but isn't eligible for deletion. When an article has problems with NPOV, it should be marked for cleanup, not deleted as a knee-jerk reaction. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You see inherent policy violation as clean-up?--]
- Strong keep Aside from not being suitable for Wikinews (something 2½ years old isn't news!) and being an obviously WP:POINT nomination, this article is a useful summary and is entirely capable of being cleaned up and sourced, and "highlights" can easily be defined to restrict what's not notable. Being a summary of what's noted elsewhere isn't a problem: for example, France at the Olympics is a summary of individual "France at the [year] [season] Olympics" articles. It's basically an implementation of Wikipedia:Summary style. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because its 2.5 years old doesn't make it news? then it is old news and not entirely appropriate for wikipedia. As pointed out, ]
- So we should delete an article just because it would cover a lot? Ridiculous. Also, Battle of Grunwald is 598-year-old news, by your assessment, and thus eligible for deletion. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but you might want to see that write-up we have on purposely not getting the point.. The battle of grunwald is a far cry from the cherry picked highlights of the olympics, especially when the information is already included elsewhere.--]
- And would you explain how exactly a user browsing Wikipedia is expected to obtain the information provided on this page by way of the existing articles? I don't know about you, but I would never in a million years look for information on the 2006 Winter Olympics by typing in "(sport) at the 2006 Winter Olympics" if there were a "highlights" article, at least not when looking for non-obscure information. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering some people don't want to consider it to be anything more than a medal/world record list (which is their opinion on what a highlight is and thus original research) You can start off at ]
- And would you explain how exactly a user browsing Wikipedia is expected to obtain the information provided on this page by way of the existing articles? I don't know about you, but I would never in a million years look for information on the 2006 Winter Olympics by typing in "(sport) at the 2006 Winter Olympics" if there were a "highlights" article, at least not when looking for non-obscure information. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but you might want to see that write-up we have on purposely not getting the point.. The battle of grunwald is a far cry from the cherry picked highlights of the olympics, especially when the information is already included elsewhere.--]
- So we should delete an article just because it would cover a lot? Ridiculous. Also, Battle of Grunwald is 598-year-old news, by your assessment, and thus eligible for deletion. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because its 2.5 years old doesn't make it news? then it is old news and not entirely appropriate for wikipedia. As pointed out, ]
- Delete. Does this list have arbitrary inclusion criteria (in principle, who decides what constitutes a highlight) or does it just list every gold medalist? Punkmorten (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only way that a list of 'highlights' for an olympiad can emerge is via WP:OR, and as such is not material that is eligible for inclusion in wikipedia. Aaronw (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong speedy keep. Does the nominator have a personal vendetta against the Olympics? Being a summary of what's noted elsewhere isn't criteria for deletion. Neither is an abundance of resources. The title could be viewed as non-NPOV, but it would not really make sense an any other form I can think of. AFD is not the place to get articles cleaned up. How is a highlight original research anyway? Original research is information that isn't substantiated by reliable sources, not information that is categorised without a source. See ]
- The problem is what is a highlight and what isn't a highlight isn't a fact. So referencing that is fairly meaningless.Any number of news organizations may declare any piece of information a "highlight" and respective countries might consider any remotely good news about one of their athletes a "highlight" (a personal best finish, even if it isn't remotely in medal contention for example). Editors making judgment calls about what is and isn't a highlight is original research and violates NPOV. In addition to that Speedy Keep can no longer apply once editors other than the nominator have spoken for its deletion.--]
- So why not just add more highlights? If news sources in multiple countries agree that something's a highlight, there's no problem with the news sources' respective biases. Even in the United States, where nobody cares about anything other than Team USA, the news mentions highlights not involving the United States. Collecting related information is not OR. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the page would explode to possibly thousands of items or more. The criteria because some vague it becomes an inappropriate list per ]
- What part of WP:LIST says that long lists aren't acceptable? Thousands of items would be a bit much, but I see no inherent problems associated with lengthening the list. If we include medals, world and Olympic records, and citable non-competition events (such as the Opening and Closing ceremonies) the list is shorter than many others and very possible to cite. We could even add more without damaging it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is a manual of style on long articles which also covers lists, but you've just proven my point. Lists states NPOV must be adhered to, and you can't adhere to that if you're cherry picking results. The page is either thousands of entries long or it can't exist without violating policy. But that still doesn't give it a pass on ]
- What part of WP:LIST says that long lists aren't acceptable? Thousands of items would be a bit much, but I see no inherent problems associated with lengthening the list. If we include medals, world and Olympic records, and citable non-competition events (such as the Opening and Closing ceremonies) the list is shorter than many others and very possible to cite. We could even add more without damaging it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the page would explode to possibly thousands of items or more. The criteria because some vague it becomes an inappropriate list per ]
- So why not just add more highlights? If news sources in multiple countries agree that something's a highlight, there's no problem with the news sources' respective biases. Even in the United States, where nobody cares about anything other than Team USA, the news mentions highlights not involving the United States. Collecting related information is not OR. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is what is a highlight and what isn't a highlight isn't a fact. So referencing that is fairly meaningless.Any number of news organizations may declare any piece of information a "highlight" and respective countries might consider any remotely good news about one of their athletes a "highlight" (a personal best finish, even if it isn't remotely in medal contention for example). Editors making judgment calls about what is and isn't a highlight is original research and violates NPOV. In addition to that Speedy Keep can no longer apply once editors other than the nominator have spoken for its deletion.--]
- Over 9000 Keep, but I would be remiss in not pointing out the fine arguments in the 2008 highlights discussion. This is more than acceptable and a good, sourced resource. A rename might not hurt; but I'm not sure it's necessary.Ravenmasterq (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we looking at the same article? I don't see any sources, care to revise your statement?--]
- The sources are available on the other pages you mention in every other sentence. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we looking at the same article? I don't see any sources, care to revise your statement?--]
- I failed to see any 'fine arguments' at all in the other discussion. They mainly seemed to be votes without comment or ]
- The deletion votes were overwhelmingly ]
- That is patently untrue. Brilliantine (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they're more than two words doesn't mean they aren't bad arguments. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is patently untrue. Brilliantine (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion votes were overwhelmingly ]
- I failed to see any 'fine arguments' at all in the other discussion. They mainly seemed to be votes without comment or ]
Arbitrary break
- Delete it is an arbitrary list which does not define what a highlight is, plus although everything is wikilinked there are no external sources. It is simply all OR and POV, I suspect the results are covered elsewhere so making this redundant. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is WP:OR by its very nature. If there is any useful and NPOV content, this should be introduced to the main article. Brilliantine (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - its basically a list of medal winners w/ a brief bit of context which by default is notable and cited and provides an easy to read less information overload view of the event. -- Tawker (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn -- Highly useful article. I'd like to see it deleted. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that sarcasm, or are you voting for this article to be deleted? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If people actually want this deleted, why hasn't anyone made any reference to why. The nomination is just WP:POINT, the initial rationale was refused in the previous discussion, and no new rationale has been presented. The arguments for deletion are simply attempts to refute the arguments for keeping, and AfD defaults to keep. So, anyone want to make a list of reasons for deletion? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The initial rationale was not refused in the previous discussion. There was a roughly 50/50 split in the debate, and few arguments on the keep side were any more than WP:NPOV. Moreover, the nature of the article is unencyclopedic, is contrary to the manual of style - and last but not least, duplicates existing content. These are sound arguments based on policy. Brilliantine (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I'm encouraging any closing admin to read the arguments carefully and remember consensus isn't a vote and there is a larger consensus formed in the policies being referenced.--]
- Reply to Brilliantine Deletion is less disruptive than keeping the article, eh? What's your definition of "disruptive"? Wikipedia-affiliated Wiktionary gives "to throw into confusion or disorder" and "to interrupt or impede something". Now, explain how not deleting an article is disruptive. Retaining the status quo is by definition less disruptive than deleting a perfectly good article. Also, the nomination was disruptive. Nominating this article because another failed is very WP:POINTy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment See User talk:Becky Sayles. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Frankly, It doesn't matter to me what the nominator's intentions are (I shall assume WP:USEFUL and your frankly bizarre mention of 'disruption' above. Brilliantine (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before disparaging an opinion because it used WP:USEFUL as a rationale, I think it would do some editors well to review that guideline. Something that is useful to a very large number of people (ie. olympics coverage), as opposed to a segment of the population (ie. the new york phonebook or crossmr's family tree) can be excluded from the application of USEFUL. Random89 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ALSO: I quote this from the guideline: "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject." is a valid rationale for keeping. I belive that applies here. Random89 22:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:USEFUL: "Remember, you need to tell us why the article is useful or useless, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies". I'm afraid I strongly believe that it does not meet Wikipedia's policies, and also duplicates far too much content - look at the main article for the games, the large number of articles to do with individual sports at those games, and the medal table article. Brilliantine (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we say WP:IDONTLIKEIT, anyone? Belief is not a reason to delete. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we say
- From
- (ec with Random89 and Brilliantine) Wikipedia would be a laughingstock if nothing got deleted? Wikipedia would be a laughing stock if we followed your ridiculous arguments for deletion on every page. If I counted correctly, we would have slightly under four articles. The problems with the "very nature of the article" are problems you have with its title. You point at WP:PROBLEM? Name one reason why the problems are unfixable. Not just "There are reasons", but actual reasons supported by actual policy. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before disparaging an opinion because it used
- Reply Frankly, It doesn't matter to me what the nominator's intentions are (I shall assume
(unindent) Look above. It inherently violates
- So why can't the source links be copied to the highlights article? Point to the policy forbidding that. Repeating the same policy-unsupported points over and over again doesn't really strengthen your argument. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In part because of the 2008 AFD ]
- Comment "The other discussion was closed as the article was then linked from the main page, not as a result of the discussion." - Brilliantine ]
- What would the other part be? The 2008 discussion was closed on procedure and consisted of little more than ]
- Maybe he was thinking of every one of the keep votes above and below? You might want to read them some day. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the wrong place to address concerns such as NPOV and UNDUE, the article could be edited to be neutral and balanced. While the article is not in great shape, in theory it is a perfectly viable topic for an article. Also, I am coming close to considering a bad faith nom, because it was essentially dragged to AfD after an editor cited it as a precedent for the format of the 2008 Olympics AfD as part of a keep vote. Random89 08:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a perfectly viable topic, that is the problem. The topic suffers from the fact that it is a "news" topic, and the nature of the topic invites OR and NPOV issues which is why it is here. Another editor made a pointless argument at the 2008 deletion discussion and this was nominated as a result and may have been otherwise nominated as the submitter of the 2008 may not have been aware of the 2006 at the time. I recommend ]
- So anything that is a "news" topic invites NPOV and OR concerns? And anything that has NPOV and OR concerns should be dragged through AfD? I find the topic viable because it is verifiable, per WP:V and WP:RS, could be written from a NPOV, and can be cited to remove OR. I am assuming good faith, as I do believe that the nominator was trying to better the porject (in her view) when she started olympics noms, but nominating this while the other discussion was still ongoing, and continuing the process after the other AfD was essentially closed until at least after the olympics, has the semblance of POINT. Random89 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point Crossmr is trying to make is that, given the title and scope of the article, it isn't possible for it to be anything other than OR. Brilliantine (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) All news has problems with NPOV and OR? The AfD criteria aren't NPOV and OR, anyway, they're WP:N. The topic is verifiable, can be NPOV, and citations exist. The nomination wasn't really clean either. WP:POINT could have been written about it. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this news topic has a problem with NPOV and OR because of the specific title given to it. As I've pointed out numerous times a highlight could be considered any fact about the olympics that ANY reliable source deemed worthy of giving coverage on a particular day. Any other interpretation of "highlight" could be considered original research and violate neutral point of view by giving undue weight to some editors opinion about what constitutes a highlight. With that in mind and understanding how many news organizations cover the olympics and what they might all right, this becomes a list of unmanageable scope which doesn't belong here.--]
- So change the title, then. WP:SOFIXIT should be read by everyone who votes to delete this. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I pointed out above where all this information is already contained in just 2 places already. There is no reason to condense just 2 pages in to 1 page. The fix, is to delete it because its unnecessary.--]
- See ]
- Which don't apply since the page inherently violates policy as it is. I pointed out that it violated several policies simply by its nature. So you claimed it should be fixed. I then pointed out that fixing it was unnecessary because the information is already contained in just 2 locations. It is duplicating information elsewhere which is also against policy. You haven't given any compelling reason to keep this article.--]
- See ]
- I pointed out above where all this information is already contained in just 2 places already. There is no reason to condense just 2 pages in to 1 page. The fix, is to delete it because its unnecessary.--]
- So change the title, then.
- No, this news topic has a problem with NPOV and OR because of the specific title given to it. As I've pointed out numerous times a highlight could be considered any fact about the olympics that ANY reliable source deemed worthy of giving coverage on a particular day. Any other interpretation of "highlight" could be considered original research and violate neutral point of view by giving undue weight to some editors opinion about what constitutes a highlight. With that in mind and understanding how many news organizations cover the olympics and what they might all right, this becomes a list of unmanageable scope which doesn't belong here.--]
- So anything that is a "news" topic invites NPOV and OR concerns? And anything that has NPOV and OR concerns should be dragged through AfD? I find the topic viable because it is verifiable, per WP:V and WP:RS, could be written from a NPOV, and can be cited to remove OR. I am assuming good faith, as I do believe that the nominator was trying to better the porject (in her view) when she started olympics noms, but nominating this while the other discussion was still ongoing, and continuing the process after the other AfD was essentially closed until at least after the olympics, has the semblance of POINT. Random89 21:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a perfectly viable topic, that is the problem. The topic suffers from the fact that it is a "news" topic, and the nature of the topic invites OR and NPOV issues which is why it is here. Another editor made a pointless argument at the 2008 deletion discussion and this was nominated as a result and may have been otherwise nominated as the submitter of the 2008 may not have been aware of the 2006 at the time. I recommend ]
(unindent) Point to the policy which states that duplicating information elsewhere is bad. Not an essay, but a policy. Essays aren't reasons to delete. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 02:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to say that this is the reason why I left Wikipedia a couple of years ago, after 3 years of editing. You must be a very sad person Becky Sayles, try getting a life. Cheers to those who keep the spirit. Continue your good work! 85.243.52.14 (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yaaaaaawn and remove rollback right Even if this was a OR, then you should work on improving it and adding refs. A better reason to keep the article is to go and check the traffic of the article. I bet this article recieved more traffic than 1,000,000 other articles on English wikipedia. Also, I don't understand how a user with such blatant activities against contribuiting received a rollback right.... ]
- We're discussing this article, not a users rollback rights. If you want to discuss that you might want to find the appropriate forum to do so. I don't see in any of the cited polices a line which states "If this article gets a lot of traffic, this policy does not apply to it". Per ]
- So why not define some criteria? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We're discussing this article, not a users rollback rights. If you want to discuss that you might want to find the appropriate forum to do so. I don't see in any of the cited polices a line which states "If this article gets a lot of traffic, this policy does not apply to it". Per ]
- Strong Keep - A better example of a very useful and well organized list I cannot imagine. This one gets a Gold Medal from my POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful and well organized? Sorry, could you point to the part of ]
- Move and turn this into a sub-page of 2006 in sports to transclude to show at 2006 in sports#Olympics. This is not an encyclopedia article and should not be in article space, but contains enough useful info to keep around. I don't suggest merging -- can't categorise with "2006 Winter Olympics" after merge. --PFHLai (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the article remains essentially the same, simply as a subpage, I would agree with such an outcome. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 22:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This page has a searchable database of all Olympic medal winners since 1896. If someone figured out how to cite it in the article, it'd be enough to source at least half of the highlights. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If this is deleted, then I shall renominate the equivalent page for the Beijing Olympics for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please focus on this article/nomination. Aaronw (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Every night the while the Olympics happen the news coverage is exactly this kind of a highlights coverage only we have links to the articles on the athletes and sports, etc. Quite useful and an excellent use of wikipedia. Presenting a summary of dozens of other articles into a useful format seems quite helpful as well. If there is an Olympics project they should consider building similar articles for each event if the main articles are already too large. ]
- Keep if renamed. I was going to agree with the deletion nomination based on the name alone, then I actually looked at the article and realised it's basically acceptable - it provides a cut-down list of the major events and records from the 2006 Olympics. While all the information here is available elsewhere, this seems like a useful way of presenting it. I would urge a rename, though; as argued above, 'highlights' has implications of original research. I would support the title suggested on the talk page: 'Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics'. Terraxos (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights, needs a major clean up however. — Realist2 16:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That article was only kept because it was linked from the main page at the time, *NOT* due its own merits. Aaronw (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have proposed on the talk page that this article be renamed Chronological summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics. This is an accurate reflection of the content of the article, and negates some of the concerns over OR and NPOV. Because of this AfD, I would like larger input before carrying out such a move. Random89 19:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest a modification to 2006 Winter Olympics summary of notable events to more clearly indicate what's in the article instead of just chronological. ]
- How about just Summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be fine as long as the lede continues to spell out that the article is of notable events. ]
- How about just Summary of the 2006 Winter Olympics? Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest a modification to 2006 Winter Olympics summary of notable events to more clearly indicate what's in the article instead of just chronological. ]
- Delete per comments made on Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's downhill). Do we really need yet another, redundant, way of browsing this content? This article was originally created around the time of those Games, so I would say it is a case of WP:Recentism. As a long time and prolific editor for the Olympics WikiProject, I can say that every 2 or 4 years we get a huge boatload of new editors coming along to work on Olympic articles, with lots of good-faith ideas of what more they can add, but then they move on to the next flavor of the month after the Games conclude. This article is a great example of that. Is there really any long-term historical perspective to be gained from a per-day organization of material that is already present on the per-sport and/or per-nation articles, or on the main article itself? I don't think so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, deciding what is and is not a highlight inherently violates ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep, linked from main page. Remove from there first, then nominate for deletion. Discussion should be at
]2008 Summer Olympics highlights
- )
An article for the 2008 Olympics already exists. Individual pages for the different sports already exist. A highlights article is not necessary, nor is it encyclopedic. Highlighting individual elements of such a large event will most definitely generate problems with
]- Delete as nominator.]
- You are the nominator. We already know your position... ]
- Keep Very surprised this is even nominated. ]
- Why are you surprised? do you have any reason to support keeping it?]
- Comment Can we close this AfD yet? The article is obviously going to be kept. Benjaminx (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, it's been up for less than a day. Editors in other time zones should be given the opportunity to comment. Please attempt to discuss reasons for deleting or keeping this article.]
- Comment Can we close this AfD yet? The article is obviously going to be kept. Benjaminx (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are you surprised? do you have any reason to support keeping it?]
- Keep Not necessary to nominate this article for deletion. CoolKid1993 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Any explanation for why it's not necessary?]
- Keep - very useful to readers... Chalisa (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- user has less than 10 edits
- Speedy keep very poor nomination. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- user does not address nomination]
- Thanks for that little note, but I don't need to be messaged on my talk page. I think this was a very poor nomination, firstly because it is a necessary article chronicling the progress of the 2008 Olympic Games. It meets the criteria for inclusion as it is a comprehensive tracking of the accrued gold medals, and this is within the encyclpedic "plane" in my experience. I strongly advise the nominator than haranguing the keepers will not result in a change of result for this AfD of an article that fully deserves to be kept and should not have been nominated in the first place. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No article is "necessary", so it is unclear what you mean. Don't ]
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The article you mention does chronicle the games, but not as completely as the article you have nominated for deletion does. While the information on the nominated page is necessary, it would extend the length of the base article ridiculously if the two were amalgamated. Your second and third sentences don't make sense; Wikipedia articles don't need to be read by anyone to be included. If no-one read the article on Bede (or <insert obscure but notable person here>) simply because no-one cared about him anymore, do you think it likely we'd omit him from the enyclopedia? No. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- You believe any article updated rapidly and quickly as events transpire is a blog? This is silly. Th epage created for the purpose of keeping track of new world records and medal achievements is this one. I repeat, this is the page. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not presume to know what I believe. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it ]
- I will not presume to know what you believe, but please do not presume that I am interested in commenting any further on this AfD. Thus far, you have templated me on my talk page with a bogus warning of personal attack, engaged in heated discussion with me here and on your talk when the said discussion could have been perfectly cordial, and we are now going around in circles. My views are aforementioned; please read them, they are perfectly sane reasons for why this page should be kept. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not presume to know what I believe. Wikipedia is not a blog, nor is it ]
- You believe any article updated rapidly and quickly as events transpire is a blog? This is silly. Th epage created for the purpose of keeping track of new world records and medal achievements is this one. I repeat, this is the page. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- No article is "necessary", so it is unclear what you mean. Don't ]
- Thanks for that little note, but I don't need to be messaged on my talk page. I think this was a very poor nomination, firstly because it is a necessary article chronicling the progress of the 2008 Olympic Games. It meets the criteria for inclusion as it is a comprehensive tracking of the accrued gold medals, and this is within the encyclpedic "plane" in my experience. I strongly advise the nominator than haranguing the keepers will not result in a change of result for this AfD of an article that fully deserves to be kept and should not have been nominated in the first place. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- user does not address nomination]
- Keep Uh yeah, no. Follows in the tradition of 2006 Winter Olympics highlights and is perfectly acceptable. Geologik (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, I'm nominating that one too.]
- Comment It's unfortunate, that instead of working to improve articles, ridiculous exercises such as this pull people away constructive contributions. It's also too bad that Wikipedians can't nominate their fellow editors for deletion. ;) Geologik (talk) 07:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Becky Sayles, please be aware of ]
- ok, I'm nominating that one too.]
- Keep It's very useful actually, and the fact that it is incosistent with articles on previous Olympics is actually a critique directed at those articles, not this one. Timbouctou (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this article useful? how is that a criterion for being kept? It reads like a blog, and simply duplicates information already present in other articles more appropriately organized under the page for the 2008 Olympic games and related individual sports. ]
- Keep --KSA13 06:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Afd is not a vote.]
- Speedy Keep no valid rationale given for deletion. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is invalid about removing duplicated information from existing, better organized articles? ]
- You do not give a valid rationale for deletion. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are ]
- So isn't duplicating material from other articles a good reason for deletion. There is already a page 2008 Summer Olympics for the games. Also, there are individual pages for sports results:
- You do not give a valid rationale for deletion. "Not encyclopedic", "possible NPOV violations" and "not consistent with MOS" are ]
- What is invalid about removing duplicated information from existing, better organized articles? ]
|
|
There's no legitimate purpose for keeping this page. It's basically a blog for a current event.
]- Speedy Keep - useful and important part of the series of articles regarding the olympics, a source of concise results information for readers. this article is a good place to document the games as they unfold and should be kept for the duration of the games, however we could consider merging the articles once the games are through. - preschooler@heart 06:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying keep and then merge? doesn't make sense. See ]
- I am saying that the information covered in this article is important and useful in the context of the event covered, and I can speak from my own edits that the information collected is from varied sources to form a rounded coverage of the topic presented. Like an encyclopedia. Which, from my best deductive skills, is what we're going for with this whole silly wiki"pedia" notion. And if we decide later that it's appropriate to merge it with the main article, that's for a different time, but at least for the duration of the games this article has served as a "Current Events section for the olympic coverage.- preschooler@heart 07:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying keep and then merge? doesn't make sense. See ]
- Speedy Keep. This information very well could be on the main article for the 2008 Olympics, but that article is way too long already, and it's a good thing that this is split off by itself. Benjaminx (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a good thing to be split off? It doesn't just duplicate information from ]
- It does belong in the main article, but there's not enough room. That page is already way too big for many users without broadband, so it has subarticles like this one. Also, I think it's ]
- It's been up for less than a day.]
- It does belong in the main article, but there's not enough room. That page is already way too big for many users without broadband, so it has subarticles like this one. Also, I think it's ]
- Why is it a good thing to be split off? It doesn't just duplicate information from ]
- Keep BeckySayles should wait a month after the Olympics end so that articles are no longer in flux. This article is of use at the moment at the very least. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Listen, a dozen+ people have voted keep. Only you Sayles wants to delete. Is this a democratic vote or not? The individual sports articles have nearly ZERO content aside from numbers and names. This hilight page gives some human aspects to the events at the Olympics. For example, being the first gold medalist for your country ever is an interesting and exciting event not normally mentioned in individual articles. Being on the verge of defeat is something you can't deduce from simple numbers.76.124.8.58 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, it's not a democratic vote. See ]
- You're right - this is not a vote. A sheer weight of numbers pushing for one outcome or the other has no value here. Rather, it is the weight of the arguments. ]
- Actually no, it's not a democratic vote. See ]
- Keep. Becky Sayles, I appreciate that "it's interesting" is not a valid reason for an article. However, your pointing out that it is duplicate information does not warrant its deletion. As it is, the Olympics wikiproject decided against having articles for every day of competition. Rather they keep the information on the pages for the various nations and also for the various sports. And so, although the information on who won what event is listed elsewhere, this page represents the only place on Wikipedia where the information is presented all in the one place and chronologically. This format for viewing the information is unique and also encyclopedic as it does show the sequence of medals - important historically. ]
- If the Olympics wikiproject made such decisions, then why does this page exist? If consensus was already reached that chronological documentation of events was unwanted, then that would suggest this page should be deleted.]
- I believe that there are no daily pages because of this page, not in spite of it. I presume that if this page, and others like, it were deleted then there would be a re-looking at the creating daily pages. I personally would like to see both but somehow I don't think you'd agree. :-) ]
- What purpose would it serve to have either? Doesn't it make sense to have the information in the pages that are easily identified by name? like ]
- I believe that there are no daily pages because of this page, not in spite of it. I presume that if this page, and others like, it were deleted then there would be a re-looking at the creating daily pages. I personally would like to see both but somehow I don't think you'd agree. :-) ]
- If the Olympics wikiproject made such decisions, then why does this page exist? If consensus was already reached that chronological documentation of events was unwanted, then that would suggest this page should be deleted.]
- Delete Per nom. Not necessary, semi-OR and belongs on Wikinews. ]
- I agree that "highlights" is subjective. Case in point being that every gold/silver/bronze medal winner country will think their medal in one or other event is a 'big deal' and thus can be considered a 'highlight'. So the title alone is highly subjective. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would like to point out that the vast majority of the editors who wish to keep this article are relying on the ]
- Delete This is a highly unnecessary article which really belongs on wikinews (and probably already exists there). Its highly subjective, and frankly violates ]
- comment The deletion template was removed from the article by an IP for a few hours. I've since restored it.--]
- Keep This is not a paper Encyclopedia where there is a dearth of empty pages. This page serves as a one stop glance for all the events going on and there result without having the need to go to every individual page, which in itself is a cumbersome task. This page should be mantained and in my opinion the man who proposed deletion should be banned from using Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbytheonlyone (talk • contribs) 10:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per many voices above. Perfectly useful and concise article. - Darwinek (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is significant enough to have it's own page rather than being lost amongst
and clogging upwikinews. Article is extremely useful and judging by the amount of support it is worthwhile keeping. Lympathy Talk 11:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- It does have its own page, several in fact. It being useful has no bearing on allowing it to skirt policy.--]
- comment - I would also like to add that the article is very neutral as all gold medallists are included and only other things are listed such as clear blockbuster events, records and firsts. Also this is the only place on wikipedia that chronologically evokes the olympic experience. This page can also work as a porthole to wikinews. Lympathy Talk 11:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "highlights" is a highly subjective view if we are picking themselves and an incredibly broad one if we are leaving it to the worlds media (all countries will have their own view on the highlights centric to their own athletes) ViridaeTalk 11:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Almost all of the articles about former Olympic Games have a highlights section. Why are you think that it's better to write Olympic Highlights after the Games, when we can do it continously in the 16 days? 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.155.59 (talk)
- Delete, deciding what is a highlight or not violates ]
- Keep. Notable and viable topic for an article, given that this is a major worldwide event and to merge this information into the main article would make it too long. This therefore is a reasonable split. Stifle and others actually make a good point that the name of the article could be interpreted as an NPOV violation, so I would suggest a possible renaming might be in order (if this occurs, the similar Olympics articles will need to also be renamed for consistency). However that is a content issue. All I care about is the viability of this article, and this article is definitely viable. After the Olympics conclude, there will probably be a need to trim the article a little, but that can be addresse later. 23skidoo (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—It is a useful article, which is not particularly vulnerable to NPOV concerns. If it continues to be careful to be consistent, ie mentioning all gold medal winners and all qualifers to finals if any are mentionned then NPOV should not be a concern.--Grahame (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. I appeal to all other editors to support this because all it serves to do is further stratify the information of the Games. There is some information not found elsewhere but it is mainly trivial. No one has defined "highlight", which confirms my belief that it's violating WP:NPOV (Isn't a gold medal a highlight? - which really negates its use, see List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). Editors here are deciding what takes precedence, not the reader. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - All gold medals are listed on the page, text is added for records and achievements (like team through to second round). I can't see anything on this article that violates WP:NPOV. It seems what editors want here is merely a definition of the word "highlight" which can be more defined over time. To delete an article at such an early stage seems like we are not giving it a chance, saying it may violate, when so far it hasn't. Lympathy Talk 13:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - All gold medals are listed on the page, text is added for records and achievements (like team through to second round). I can't see anything on this article that violates
- Delete per nom and comment above. What is a highlight? And the medal table will suffice for most purposes. The keeps seem to be leaning on ITSUSEFUL and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and so far I cannot see a cogent argument being put for retaining. In fact some of the keep comment seem to be leaning towards bullying the nominator, such as asking for a quick close before it has gone around the world. If anyone can provide a policy based reason for keeping this then I would like to see it. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and Nick Dowling. This belongs on Wikinews, see wikinews:Olympic highlights: August 10, 2008 and wikinews:Olympic highlights: August 11, 2008. JACOPLANE • 2008-08-11 13:54
- Keep. If "highlight" is the issue, then why is this not a move request? The "policy based reason" is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this page presents content in a reader-friendly format not otherwise found on the site. People seem to think that this page consists of editors adding "My cousin Tony thinks archery is lame", when the page is a strictly sourced summary mainly consisting of broken world records, national firsts, and gold medal tables, with about as little color commentary as can be imagined. If a reader wants to know, "What records were broken in the 2008 Summer Olympics?", "Were there any countries who won gold after Olympic droughts?" or even "I don't recall what happened during the 2008 Summer Olympics. I wonder if Wikipedia has a page that can summarize the sporting events with a few directed comments on when something unusual happened", then this is the page. If you delete this page, you force the reader to investigate several dozen individual event pages to find the same info, and then cross check with the competitor bio or national Olympic page to see if there is relevant info about significance not captured in the tables. Many times "it's useful" doesn't mean ]
- Keep- Its sourced, its notable, and the article can go into more detail than the main 2008 Olympics article can, which keeps it from being redundant. As an aside, I think its getting ]
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. This nomination achieves nothing but to make Wikipedia a laughingstock to the general public. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As Zeppomedio noted, either there should be an article for the double album, or 2 articles for the separate albums, but not 3 articles. However, a disambiguation page could be acceptable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Walk with Me Now and You'll Fly with Me Later
Walk with Me Now and You'll Fly with Me Later (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Articles have already been created for each seperate album,
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination -- we should either have two articles (one for each album), or one together, but definitely not three. Zeppomedio (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 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 ]
GnuGet
- GnuGet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested ProD. I don't think it's notable, and a quick google search for reliable sources seems to agree. Plus, it's a stupid pun :p. Paragon12321 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- GnuGet is in reference to Nuggets, as in chicken or gold, not nougat the confectionery Cyko 01 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here can be found a source: http://shareazasecurity.be/forum/viewforum.php?f=56
- Take a quick look at WP:RS. Sources need to be reliable. A forum doesn't count. Paragon12321 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- it is a relatively new program and there hasn't even been a real release yet, so no there are not any reliable sources or articles about the software. Cyko 01 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (I am the one who created the project)[reply]
- Reliable sources are the main standard for notability. If there aren't any sources to be found, it probably shouldn't have an article. Paragon12321 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the project is under development, there should be other sources soon. Also, the article will probably be expanded in the near future... Let's wait for a while if there are notable changes to sources and project status before deleting it. mfg Old Death (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources are the main standard for
- it is a relatively new program and there hasn't even been a real release yet, so no there are not any reliable sources or articles about the software. Cyko 01 (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (I am the one who created the project)[reply]
- Take a quick look at
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Living Death. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sacred Chao (band)
- )
This band only ever released one EP and never charted. No assertion of notability in the article. Slashme (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider a smerge to Living Death, the band from which Sacred Chao sprung. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established by Wikipedia:MUSIC criterion 6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". A merge might still be appropriate though. --AmaltheaTalk 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Living Death, where it should become a footnote. Stijndon (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Falcon
- Abraham Falcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NN. PROD contested by author. Ian¹³/t 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The linked article ( in Spanish ) is to a reputable newspaper El Comercio (Peru) and is non-trival (3-4 pages, all about the guy and his work ), it says he at one point was the third best guitar maker in the world, need a better argument in you are going to claim non-notable Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean-up - significant coverage in a Spanish reference. PhilKnight (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Short as the article is, and ancient as his notable feats are, he was still mentioned in a notable source. I believe it counts for something. ]
- Keep - notability is language independent --T-rex 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 There is some question about whether
Storm Treasure
- Storm Treasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
does not warrant a Wikipedia article. The horse has won only three minor races, non of which are important races and none are even a Stakes race. It seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.
- delete no notability. Mukadderat (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article on a relatively minor horse. Artene50 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As much as this horse probably doesn't need an article, I've seen cricket players with a single reference of them existing warranting an article. We have non-trivial coverage of this horse's race history and stats and pedigree and stuff. Since its sourcable, I think we gotta keep it. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This doesn't seem terribly notable, similar to the lack of notability attributed to a cricket bat. Besides, this still fails ]
- Also note: I relisted this a second time because while I would have loved to close it delete, there didn't seem to be much consensus (still). I could have closed it no consensus, but then I would have had to list it here anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ?Yeah yeah, I know about WP:Athlete or is there a WP:Horse I don't know about? Wait, there is a WP:Horse but it strangely doesn't seem to be relevant. Drunken Pirate (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ?Yeah yeah, I know about
- Also note: I relisted this a second time because while I would have loved to close it delete, there didn't seem to be much consensus (still). I could have closed it no consensus, but then I would have had to list it here anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Why to Keep it!--Puttyschool (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I really don't think that animals can qualify for notability under WP:ATHLETE, and altogether a minor horse and without notability if it doesn't qualify under WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per
]Fcode
- Fcode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Permastub about an unidentified graffiti artist. Article makes no convincing assertion of notability. My first instict was {{db-bio}} but this had already been declined earlier by someone who found a source- which only mentions Fcode in passing. So I'm bringing it here. Reyk YO! 04:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7. I can see why the A1 was declined, but that source does not provide notability and no real assertion of it is made (an assertion of existence is not an assertion of notability). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. Surprised it lasted this long. Enigma message 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I should have just deleted it the first time. What was I thinking? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's up for speedy again, if you want to dispense with this procedure. I think ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Live At 400 Bar (album)
- Live At 400 Bar (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is about a non-notable bootleg concert. The only reference provided is a link to the blog post from which the bootleg originated. The article has only one registered contributor. Though the page is listed as an album, the concert recording has never actually been pressed or released. DMurphy (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:COD, eg. this is not notable and contains only a listing of tracks. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Misleading title, the tracklisting is not from an actual Conor Oberst and the Mystic Valley Band album.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really an album. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marc Geelhoed
- Marc Geelhoed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject "works in the President's Office of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on the orchestra's in-house record label, CSO Resound" and is a blogger. If this sufficient for notability? This article goes back to 2005 but for a long time there has been no progress is establishing notability. Time to delete it? Kleinzach 02:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lots of people have jobs, and lots of people went to college. Nothing here to satisfy ]
- Delete Like the tag states, the article is effectively orphaned, and so doesn't seem to expand from another article providing details. Agree with Edison. ALTON .ıl 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per Edison, who summed it up prefectly. Reyk YO! 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edison. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's never appropriate to nominate something for deletion simply because of a long delay in progress; it should be fairly immediately obvious in nearly all cases whether the subject is notable. In this case, it is obvious he is not, despite being a kind of journalist and working a high-level job. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edison. Opus33 (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Feel free to redirect if appropriate. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MSM-03 Gogg
- MSM-03 Gogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A similar article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MSM-03_Gogg was deleted a year ago. I'm not an admin so I can't tell how similar this article is to the old one, but it suffers from the same flaw. Namely, No reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Reyk YO! 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect into Mobile weapons, which is a page on these (and is itself a mess because it describes this stuff in-universe). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete FailsWP:N and is an "in-universe" article about a Gundam gizmo. Edison (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mobile weapons. Not notable enough to merit an individual article.--T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and a Comment - Mobile weapons is an in-universe article? Can it at least be moved to Mobile weapons in Gundam or something? I would expect an article called 'mobile weapons' to be about real-world self-propelled missile launchers and the like. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - still fails ]
- Delete. Entirely in-universe information about a fictional device which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Gundam Universal Century mobile units#Principality of Zeon or to Mobile weapons#Mobile armour in the Universal Century. List the variants there too. --Polaron | Talk 01:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to either of the articles Polaron suggests. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as suggested by Polaron Gelmax (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usury Free Day
- Usury Free Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
DELETE: It's non notable and not a holiday as article claim, no secondary sources to support and Google search did not reveal much results Cahk (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Private persons cannot simply declare holidays in Canada (or in most jurisdictions I know of), and so this is nonsense. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has only a reference wherein Mr. Kennedy declares a holiday. Fails ]
- Delete - ]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things someone made up in order to publicize a cause. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr Kennedy has uploaded a very detailed video commentary to YouTube. Unfortunately there are no independent reliable sources. Delete. Axl (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS - good sources can not probably be found. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), per
Shamone
- )
DELETE - Because this is an encyclopedia, I don't care how famous Mr. Jackson is, a whole article for one of his wordings is scrapping the barrel. Lacks notability and makes the encyclopedia look tacky. — Realist2 01:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeRedirect into Michael Jackson. Nearly every singer mangles words; this particular instance is not notable just because of who did it. I also strongly doubt the assertion the "word" has popular usage. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- How would merging this pile of poo help improve a featured article? — Realist2 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this way. Now that the only smidgen of useful information that can be referenced has been thus merged, the article can be deleted and made a redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, should we just go ahead and redirect? — Realist2 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would. Also, thanks for cleaning up the syntax error in my reference. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, should we just go ahead and redirect? — Realist2 02:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this way. Now that the only smidgen of useful information that can be referenced has been thus merged, the article can be deleted and made a redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would merging this pile of poo help improve a featured article? — Realist2 01:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the information in this article is notable, it should be used in the MJ article. Asher196 (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Concert Brunei
- )
DELETE - Lacks notability, one of many hundreds of concerts by Mr. Jackson that isn't different from the rest for any specific reason. — Realist2 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The first sentence seems to prelude notability, but in fact has nothing to do with the article, which can be summarized: "Jackson held a concert for the Sultan of Brunei in 1996." That is not notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was a WP:ONEVENT. Yes the king of Brunei is likely a billionaire but holding a concert in his country doesn't make it notable--unless something terrible happened to Jackson which clearly didn't happen. This article doesn't establish the event's notability. Artene50 (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied as a copyvio of http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1218144311298350.xml&coll=1 Jon513 (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
George Feigley
- George Feigley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I SMELL A HOAX ZXRPQ 01:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G3 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Martello
This magician is not notable, fails WP:BIO, and lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is true; he lacks notability. The article reads like he wrote it himself, but I don't think he did. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, unsourced. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One appearance on tv isnt notable Computerjoe's talk 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He's a working juggler, and that's a step ahead of most, but he has not achieved note at this point. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable--Puttyschool (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [34] includes quotes from a CEO about his work in the corporate environment. [35] states he performed for President Bush (Sr.). [36] has several quotes from professionals specifically about him. [37] interview with him. At what point is this non-trivial coverage? Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. RFerreira (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete, CSD A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St mark coptic orthodox church canberra
- St mark coptic orthodox church canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The title is about a local church, but the article is more about the denomination as a whole than about the church in Canberra. No assertion of notability, and on Google I cannot find more than directions to get there. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Blanchardb.--S MarshallTalk 00:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn, vanity page. JJL (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7. Not only is this page garbled, it does not even say anything about the church (let alone assert notability). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A7 Never asserts notability. Seems to simply be a failed attempt to post a map of its general location. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Gazimoff 09:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beiruk
- Beiruk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A rich Saharaoui tribal chief who is said to have had some business relations with some foreign countries being introduced to Wikipedia as an "ancient country" with a "status=Empire" and a population of 9,836. But an ancient country/empire? The chief could warrant a bio though I'd still doubt if he'd be notable enough with enough reliable sources provided.
Reasons for deletion:
- This is original research. The only existing book I could find -- called The African Repository doesn't refer to any country whatsoever. None of the references used to advance this original research (synthesis) is a reliable source (one is a lycos page, the other is a regional online newspaper article written by a Professor at the Department of Translation at the University of Granada (Spain)). Is he an expert? An unknown "ancient country"?
- The image used (a map) is original research. It is being used on the article without any source or reference. The map in fact is a self-made image uploaded by the same user who created the article.
Notes:
- The article has been created in parallel in the Spanish Wikipedia. It was created by the same user using an IP evading a community ban out there. The user in question is blocked in both the Spanish and the French Wikipedia for similar behaviour (extreme POV pushing, edit warring, personal attacks, lack of reliable sources, synthesis). This tells us much about the intentions behind the creation of such an article. The reason is simply to add it to a main country template as being a former dynasty.
- I blocked this editor before and both blocks were reviewed by some Spanish respected editors and admins back on 2006. This time I'd not block and I'd not even ask for him to be blocked. But I am asking the community to decide what to do with this article under all the presented circumstances. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 23:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:
- Delete. This article simply does not make any sense, and without references, I'd almost say it was a hoax. I have no idea why someone would do that, though. It is worth noting that this user has made lots of similar pages, but hasn't cited very much. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For the moment fails WP:RS and I could not find anything better after quite a bit of google searching. I am not sure that this is a hoax. At least one of the sources listed in the article, in Spanish, contains relevant info. Here is a link to a translated version (using Google automatic translator):[38]. I am not sure what the website hosting this page is but I would think that for the kind of claims contained in the article much better sourcing is needed. Nsk92 (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a hoax? In a sense, not really. It is clear that the man existed and it seems that he had some commercial links with a few foreign countries. It was a common thing at those times (read Scramble for Africa). There were hundreds of rich and privileged people throughout Morocco who mantained good business relations with foreign powers. Nothing more. It is insane to call these subjects countries, dynasties and empires unless it is verifiable. The proof is that nobody refers to them that way except some newly (2 or 3) created articles (2 or 3) online written by bloggers and a professor of translation instead of history. The author doesn't tell us from where he got his knowledge (or translation since he is not a historian). The user who created this article has also created maps (he did them) to advance his political agenda. He was blocked indefinitely in both the Spanish and the French Wiki for the same reasons. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, I agree, although I wanted to put it more diplomatically. Nsk92 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a hoax? In a sense, not really. It is clear that the man existed and it seems that he had some commercial links with a few foreign countries. It was a common thing at those times (read Scramble for Africa). There were hundreds of rich and privileged people throughout Morocco who mantained good business relations with foreign powers. Nothing more. It is insane to call these subjects countries, dynasties and empires unless it is verifiable. The proof is that nobody refers to them that way except some newly (2 or 3) created articles (2 or 3) online written by bloggers and a professor of translation instead of history. The author doesn't tell us from where he got his knowledge (or translation since he is not a historian). The user who created this article has also created maps (he did them) to advance his political agenda. He was blocked indefinitely in both the Spanish and the French Wiki for the same reasons. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Regardless if it is a hoax or not, the entry lacks the references and reliable sources it needs to back up its claims. --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't actually think it's a hoax, but I thought it might be worth suggesting. Nonetheless, I think the only difference between it being a hoax and it not is whether we delete it now or later. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Even if it isn't a hoax, I oppose per all above me. Asenine08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete The only Beiruk connected to Morocco is a historical person: Sheikh Beiruk. This search turns up no reliable sources on a place called Beiruk: [39] Even if the article was on this person, he would fail notability and ]
- Delete: Good old fashioned Babelfish gibberish, to start with, but then it goes on to have a kingdom that no historical atlas can verify and which shows up nowhere but this user's account. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine St-Laurent
- )
I see that this article has been nominated for deletion.
I would simply note that:
(1) Katherine St-Laurent was one of the top 10 contestants on Canadian Idol, finishing in 9th. place. There are individual Wikipedia articles for all but one of the 9th. place finishers in previous years.
(2) There are individual Wikipedia articles for all of the top 10 contestants on American Idol.
Given the number of other articles for 9th. place contestants on the Idol shows, I see no reason for singling this article out for deletion, while retaining the other articles. This would be purely arbitrary, and inconsistent with previous practice. JD Fan (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JD Fan, can you please add whether KEEP, REDIRECT or DELETE to this article for this AFD debate. --ApprenticeFan (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - user who actually nominated the article for deletion appears to be User:121.96.101.243 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I think the article has a reliable source (CTV) and the subject's marginally notable.--S MarshallTalk 07:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the usual benchmark for contestants is top 3, except if there are other reasons which enhance the individual's notability. 171 GHits. The CTV site is purely a promotional tool for the show, so if that is the best fellow editors can do, the subject lacks reliable independent sources and is thus not notable. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucius, please note, you made a major error in your Google query. You used "-ctv.ca", when you mean "-site:ctv.ca" or maybe -"inurl:ctv.ca". You wanted to exclude ctv as a source, but you actually removed all references to the text ctv.ca. A similiar mistake with "youtube". It's good to exclude the site with "-site:youtube.com", but you excluded references to it. So, for instance, if a major newspaper mentions this person's "youtube" fans, your query excludes it. If you had done a query to exclude these terms from the url, such as this, you'd see 12,000 hits, with the National Post doing a full story on her as the first result. --Rob (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The actual practice for "Idol" contestants is top 10, not top 3, as evidenced by the Wikipedia articles for previous seasons for both Canadian Idol and American Idol. Argument to keep this article is based on consistency with established practice for both Canadian and American Idol. From a Canadian viewpoint, I would also add that the notability of the article is enhanced by the fact that Katherine St-Laurent was the top Canadian Idol contestant from Quebec this year, with good potential for building a career in Quebec subsequently.
- As for sources, the CTV site is not just promotional, but also factual, particularly in the matters covered by the article, i.e., biographies of the singers and who sang what when. The site also has videos of the actual performances, along with the judges' comments, so you can see first-hand who sang what when and what the judges said about their performances. JD Fan (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is not promotional, the fact incontrovertible fact is that the station carries the program, and articles about it on their website are hardly independent of the subject, and are usually excluded. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is not promotional, the fact incontrovertible fact is that the station carries the program, and articles about it on their website are hardly
- Delete per N. Unsourced detail for this article. --121.96.101.177 (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: When she achieves significance outside of the candle flame of a reality show, she will fit. Until then, delete. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References can be developed iteratively: if more need to be added, more can and will be added. If lack of references at the outset of an article were a reason for deletion, then we would have to delete large numbers of stub and start-class articles. More references will be added shortly. As for the comment about "the candle flame of a reality show", that is simply a point of view. The key fact here is that millions of people watch these shows. That's the reality. The fact remains that we do have articles for the Top 10 Idol contestants in both Canada and the USA - and consistency should prevail. JD Fan (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Comment – This might be a close call. I don't think the biography of her on CTV's website (the network on which Canadian Idol airs) can really be seen as an independent source. But there is this article in Toronto's edition of The Montreal Gazette (Jane Davenport, "Call out for a girl soprano: Young singers audition for lead role in Cirque's Quidam show", The Gazette, 2002-04-21, p. A3), which talks about her, at age 10, auditioning for a singing role in Cirque du Soleil. (I'm assuming that's the same Katherine St-Laurent, but am not certain.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThanks for the sources. Again, I return to the question of consistency. If other Idol Top 10 articles are kept, then why not this one? What kind of law or policy applies arbitrarily to some cases but not to others? No policy can be administered in that fashion and still retain any legitimacy. If this article is deleted, then delete all the other other Top 10 articles for Idol contestants who did not place in the Top 3 - for both Canada and the USA.JD Fan (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what is commonly known as WP:BLP1E. Most Season 5 contestants have been redirected. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for her career beyond Idol, keep in mind that she is one of the youngest Idol contestants, and may well have a lot of possibilities, especially in the Quebec market. Give it a bit of time. Why the rush to delete articles? People are not obliged to read this or any other article. It's their choice whether or not to click on the links. Let them have a wide choice.JD Fan (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JD Fan, you should only say "Keep" once. Future comments should be labelled "Comment", not "Keep" to make it easier for people to gage opinions. --Rob (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody can predict what lies ahead. Proposing to keep an article based on her promise or potential is akin to looking in a crystal ball, and is an invalid argument for keeping an article. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I vote to keep this since it has historic significance as American Idol history is defining many of the entertainment bigwigs.
Lucaskant (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to explain how this the subject or achievements are historical in any way. In actual fact, there is precious little biographical information if we cut out all the crap about what she did and what the show judges said. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The usual benchmark for Idol contestants is Top 3 unless they go on to do something notable beyond just being on Idol. Delete; if she gets a recording contract and releases a hit album later on, she can have an article at that time. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the "benchmark" is WP:N, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". --Rob (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which there's absolutely no evidence that Mme St-Laurent has achieved to date, since all the sources at hand are either YouTube links, or directly linked to Canadian Idol itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be clearer in your comments. If you mean all other stories are mainly about her involvement in Canadian Idol say that. If instead, you mean they're linked to the show, and just promoting it, then please say that (actually, don't say that, as it's libel). Anyways, re-read WP:N, which is actually official. Please show me policy that says "Top 3" has any relevance whatsoever. Anways, I don't mind if this article is deleted. I might make a new article, that includes proper citations from the start. I'm intentionally not voting in what amounts to a popularity contest. --Rob (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A National-Post "two-minute interview" (i.e. a five-paragraph blurb) does not constitute significant coverage — I've had as much as that written about me in a notable media outlet, for gawd's sake, and that doesn't make me notable. And at least at the time that I made my comment, the only links anywhere in the article were to YouTube videos, Canadian Idol itself and companies (i.e. Sympatico) that have promotional tie-in deals with Canadian Idol and are owned by a company that also has partial ownership of CTV, making them not an independent source. And the notion that it's libellous to say that CTV and Sympatico have partial common ownership is frankly the most absurd statement I've heard since "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should be clearer in your comments. If you mean all other stories are mainly about her involvement in Canadian Idol say that. If instead, you mean they're linked to the show, and just promoting it, then please say that (actually, don't say that, as it's libel). Anyways, re-read
- Which there's absolutely no evidence that Mme St-Laurent has achieved to date, since all the sources at hand are either YouTube links, or directly linked to Canadian Idol itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete game show contestants are not inherently notable. Resolute 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinion of game show contestants. What's your opinion of Katherine St-Laurent who was on Canadian Idol, which is not a game show? Any thoughts on how this person meets the notability criterion, such as what I quoted above? Also, which Wikipdian do you think is arguing for the inherent notability of game show contestants? Is it this person by any chance? --Rob (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though she should never have been voted off as early as she was, I don't think she is yet notable enough to warrant her own article in Wikipedia. I agree with the notion that game show contestants aren't inherently notable, including reality game shows and, as in this case, talent show contestants. So she was a contestant on Canadian Idol, that is not enough to warrant notability in my books. If she establishes some kind of career, then we're talking.Wikigonish (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the editor directly above me as well as others who have basically said the same things. Being on the show isn't notable, getting at least 3rd place seems to be, she hasn't done anything outside of this and really, we don't know if she will. If she does, good for her, then she'll be notable enough for an article. It's also entirely possible that she won't be anything more than a local singer who sings at clubs on the weekends while she has a day job like the rest of us. Dismas|(talk) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some Policy Questions I appreciate the points which have just been made, but am concerned about the following general considerations and matters of policy:
(1) American Idol and Canadian Idol are not just any game show, but rather are talent shows with very high audience ratings relative to other shows on TV. (Canadian Idol usually has around 2 million viewers.) In both cases, like it or not, they are part of the cultural history of the countries concerned.
(2) In Canada, there are also considerations of regional cultural history. With an east to west span of 5,000 km, Canada is one of the most highly regionalized countries in the world, with the result that contestants on Canadian Idol are of interest not only from the national but also the regional viewpoint: in effect, there are regional sub-markets for articles. For reasons of language and culture, this is especially true for Quebec. For the Quebec market, there is considerable interest in the francophone contestants.
(3) Looking at Idol competitions generally, there is the question of where to draw the line for notability. Some say, Top 3. But why Top 3 rather than Top 5 or Top 7? The fact is that for American and Canadian Idol, there are articles on the Top 10 - and these articles have been in place for years. In fact, Top 10 is the logical stopping point here, because the shows really start at the Top 10 point. If we are to avoid arbitrary, one-off decisions, we should really be using Top 10 rather than Top 3. Or we should be deleting all the other articles which are Top 10 but not Top 3. But that won't happen, because these articles have been in place for years and there are too many people who read those other articles and who are interested in them.
I think it's important for Wikipedia policies and practices to be consistent and to avoid arbitrary decisions on particular cases. Top 10 is the established practice for Idol contestants in the USA and Canada. Until this changes, the article on Katherine St-Laurent should stay in.
I appreciate the point that Katherine St-Laurent has yet to establish a music career, and I can see the logic in holding off on an article on her. But as long as there are articles on other Top 10 but not Top 3 contestants, her article should nevertheless stay in.
For the future, whatever the decision on this article at this time, I'm betting that she will indeed establish a career - otherwise, I would not be putting time into this article. After all, the judges on Canadian Idol did say that she had the best voice in the competition. (Yes, I agree that her performances were uneven, but there was much to build upon for the future.) One question is whether she would sing primarily in English or in French, noting that Audrey De Montigny sings mainly in French. I expect that initially, Katherine St-Laurent may sing in French, to establish herself in her home market. In that case, I would propose to leave the English Wikipedia article aside (whatever happens to it), to do the article in French instead, and to maintain the article in French, but not English.
JD Fan (talk) 17:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn per
]Luba-Katanga language
- Luba-Katanga language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
PROD removed without any improvement to the "article" (and I use the term loosely); speedy tag removed for no discernible reason. There is no article here. There is no content at all other than an infobox with some internal links, and an external link. Technically speediable via
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- keep seems to be a real language with an ISO639 code and has things wikilinked to it. RJFJR (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, it's a real language. I never said it wasn't. But we don't have an article on it. The blue link at the top of this page is completely without useful content. —]
- Keep. Even as an empty shell with just an infobox, this would still be useful. A language is inherently notable. – ]
- No, it wouldn't be "useful". An infobox is not an article. Notability is not the issue here, the nonexistence of an article is the issue here. There is no content on the page. —]
- Delete: A predicate nominative is not an article. This is a classic A3 speedy delete. I don't care how vast your box, if you don't have anything to say, then it's not a discussion of anything, and it's not an article. Gazettes are good for facts without context. Encyclopedias are contextualized discussions. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the predicate nominative is a new addition. At the time I tagged the article for deletion, it didn't even contain a complete sentence. In its current state, I'd no longer call it an A3 speedy, but it is certainly free of any meaningful content. Even calling it a stub is a gross exaggeration. —]
- Keep (Barely). Is this article any better than an obvious redlink? Marginally so. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Empty article but show that this is a language used in a certain place--Puttyschool (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Empty article" is exactly right, which is why it should be deleted, not kept. Wikipedia does not consist of contentless articles. —]
- Keep - There's little to write about the language itself and I doubt it will someday evolve beyond a stub without involving the history of the [Luba Katanga people] - a missing article. We can think of a redirect or a merge once the latter is created. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)#[reply]
- So what is the reason for keeping? —]
- Keep Real languages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the reason for nomination. Notability is not the issue here. The problem is not with the topic of the article but with the quality of the article: there is no content in it. —]
- Keep A somewhat informative stub. There is not much content, sure, but it provides some information and context, which is generally good enough. I don't think having no article would be better. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.