Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of operas by Handel

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

)

Why not a bold merge and redirect? --neon white talk 00:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why delete? It is reasonable to assume someone might come across the page as he's often known by his last name. Be bold redirect and merge anything useful if you can. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-page (that is being requested for deletion) was needlessly created in the previous day or two by an editor who is trying to steam-roller an agenda. No one has had the chance to know about the new page, and it would be a pity for it to become established merely to act as a redirect. There are 26 categories in the contents on the page listing Handel's works, and the new page seeks to split off just one of those categories (opera). For the sake of consistency, should we now have to split off the other 25 categories; or, for the sake of consistency, should we now have to create 25 other dummy category pages so they can act as redirect pages as well?
The new page was created without discussion or consensus and upsets the strategy that has been employed for a long time to display Handel's works (here). The new page was designed to simply split the "complete" works of Handel into two different pages (based on genre). That is not done for other composers, and it doesn't seem right that the practice should start (without discussion or consensus) with Handel. I'm glad that "merge" was mentioned above (as a solution) as that is the exact problem with the recent branch and edit—it precisely unmerges the existing list (for no tangible benefit). With this delete, I'm hoping to return to the existing arrangement as seemlessly as possible so that all of Handel's works are listed on the one page (at least until the community has had a chance to discuss the various options here).
The issue is not about Handel's name. The well-established existing page is known as

• Redirect. I'm not good in byte-by-byte matching, but List of operas appears to be just a cut from List of works.
  NVO (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment, no !vote I restored the content on the page. The nom in this case deleted the content on the page, nominated it for AFD, then put a "note" on the article page explaining how you could go to another page to see the duplicated content. This is not a proper way to handle this, as the content isn't contentious or BLP related. Please leave the article more or less intact while you have it at AFD, so that others may actually SEE what they are discussing. Otherwise it is poisoning the well. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator (
  List of operas by Handel, see [3]. --Kleinzach 03:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment This should not have come here--its a dispute over whether to divide an article--at least I think it is, because the content is at present completely duplicated , without anything additional. If it is intended to develop this page further, into a general or summary discussion of the operas (which, of course, almost all of them, properly have separate articles) it should be titled Operas by G F. Handel, or something similar. If it's just a list, the question is whether the main list is so large it should be divided. I've no opinion on that--it is mainly a matter of style and usability. But the present page in its present form does indeed serve no purpose. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator (
  HWV258) moved the opera list back to List of compositions by George Frideric Handel, see [4] and removed the link to the opera list page [5]. --Kleinzach 03:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Of course. Perhaps next time you'll follow WP guidelines and engage in discussion in order to seek consensus before making changes of this magnitude. You have waded into an area edited by hundreds of editors over many years and made sweeping changes—what did you imagine would happen? If you really do have something to contribute to the list of Handel's operas, perhaps you could sandpit your proposed changes to facilitate discussion. If you need help with that, I'll be more than happy to assist you.
   HWV 258  04:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. This page was split off
  List of operas by Handel. Splitting off sections from a long page is a normal process on WP. In this case there are ample precedents and a useful category has already been established for similar pages. --Kleinzach 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The "85K" point is not an issue here. 15 points as to why the split should not have happened (covering page size issues) are listed here. If "85K" was really such an issue, why didn't the user Kleinzach sub-page the largest list on the page of Handel's works (there are many much longer tables than the opera table)? Splitting off sections from a long list page is not a normal process on WP.
• Listing Mozart operas did not necessitate the deletion of the entire list of operas from the List of Mozart's works page. For some reason, the user Kleinzach felt the need to simply delete the information on the current List of Handel's works with this edit.
• The Handel entry at Category:Lists of operas by composer can simply point to the current list of Handel's operas.
• The page in question for this delete request simply serves no purpose, so officially: Delete.
   HWV 258  03:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• To clarify The content of this article was developed by me between 17 and 21 November (see [6]). When the size of the page increased, and the format matched that of other articles in
  List of operas by Handel. --Kleinzach 04:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As previously pointed out, the size of the page is irrelevant (see
   HWV 258  04:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep but I see why it is here. It needs to be shortened and better sourced. The software is notable (old version of ERP) but the article is very nonencyclopedic as written. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed off the most obvious of the spammy fat like material, only because I love the way you used "clean-uppable" in a sentence. I don't think I can do the whole job, but this is actually pretty informative in a "jab your eyes out with a fork" boring kinda way. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some of the content is unclear and possibly unencyclopedic (e.g. the "What is SAP R/3?" section, added recently, which may be opinion/original research), and more references are needed, but it meets notability guidelines and the article contains enough information to be kept. —Snigbrook 22:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.
  NVO (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • sorry stub?? It's over 17k worth of text. Did you even read it? And before you trash "the community" for "our failure" to write this article sooner, keep in mind that no one was stopping you from writing the article. I don't see how your comments are helpful in this discussion. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one except for
      NVO (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • You are right, per
      NVO (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep and improve. It's true the material is very spammy, it's a matter of style, the failure to change PR style into something fit for an encyclopedia, but it can be the basis of an article. Yes, it is a disgrace that nothing better were done with it, and there are tens of thousands of other articles in the same position. The less time we spend here, the more we can work on them. (Although in practice listing things here does seem to help as an incentive--sort of like hitting the mule with a 2 by 4 to get his attention.) DGG (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  ping 07:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Almost 2000 books mention SAP/3. I dind't bother to count how many are about SAP R/3. This is like asking to delete
  ping 07:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Wow. SAP R/3 is probably the single most notable piece of ERP software that exists. No objection to cleanup and expansion. SAP R/3 has indeed been replaced by SAP NetWeaver in SAP's current lineup over the last few years, but SAP R/3 was the big dog throughout the 90's and NetWeaver stands on its shoulders. The German article looks substantially better--not surprising since SAP is a German company. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't really put it better than the nominator - this is the
  Phil Bridger (talk) 15:59, 23 November 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 redirected without opposition.  Sandstein  18:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imeet fred

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

)

• Delete or Merge - the nominator pretty much says it all here. Not much more to say
  ^WS _(contribs) 22:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• NOTE: If information is merged, attribution needs to be retained, which is easiest to do if the article is redirected instead of deleted Otherwise you get complicated edit summaries that get lost. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, there is no 'attribution' or any relevant or notable content, the writer is listed as TBA. The only information to be verified is that this Fred character is going to be on this show at some point, which might be a fabrication; it is likely unattributable.
  Synchronism (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I'll just redirect it, it's much more simple, and will assist recreation later.
  Synchronism (talk) 22:34, 23 November 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. Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lydney Town A

Lydney Town A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as speedily as possible. I don't see how an amateur club's third team can ever be considered notable.--Michig (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Has no claim to notability.
  ^TalkQu 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Facebook. Nfitz (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - club's third team who have no notability in their own right. Mention of their existence and current division in main club article is all that is required. - fchd (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amateur side, non-notable. –  LATICS  talk  23:03, 25 November 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. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Wu: Golden Soul

Wendy Wu: Golden Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nom sums it up. Nothing that can't be recreated if the movie gets made. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Del. Nothing presented at this point to indicate this will be the title of the film. Gimmetrow 17:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One Wendy Wu movie at a time. Bring it back if its ever made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 23 November 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. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy wu 2

Wendy wu 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A future film that is unreliably sourced, and recreating the deleted article Wendy Wu 2 Ebyabe (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a clone of the other article on this, that is also not sourced. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's unsourced, filled with grammatical errors, and appears to be nothing but a character list and a very badly written summary that has no regard for proper English. I have heard that this movie is in the works, but there is definitely not a sufficient amount of information or sources for it.Purplewowies (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A search reveals that this article is a bit premature. Delete now and allow back if/when there is more that might allow cleanup and sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Wu: Golden Soul. Gimmetrow 23:41, 25 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheGreatHatsby

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

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

No indication that this passes

• Agree with nom. Delete as not passing
  WP:N. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. This is a very interesting phenomenon, in my opinion. If you look at
  WP:SPS): [8]. And here's a post on MetaFilter (which is a high-profile community blog, and is less self-published than a normal blog, I believe): [9]. Eurleif (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep. Among other things, it's a sufficiently notable nuisance for an opt-out to have been published. --Philcha (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's very useful to know why your computer is randomly making friends in the middle of the night, and the $optout command actually prevented an e-fight for me this morning. --Achellios (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. All current sources may be blogs, however, several of those (8, 13, 14) are "official" sources - blog entries by someone directly associated with the project. As far as notability, the bots can affect anyone who uses AIM and any of a number of prominent online communities. A livejournal community was created specifically to discuss these bots.Rival (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The LiveJournal community is a great point. Surely a community with about 1300 members proves something about notability? Eurleif (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with the nom on this one. This does not pass
  talk) 22:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The article is about the behavior of bots written and operated by livejournal user "salmonmaster". I think that the article passes the 7 criteria for
    WP:SPS. Granted, it needs work... Rival (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The seventh criteria calls for "an independent, reliable source" -- which

talk) 13:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are correct, by definition. However, there are at least 5 independent sources, and my personal opinion is that, given the nature of this subject, the various sources are sufficient enough to be considered "reliable". Yes, the article needs work (additional sources, renamed, possibly moved to a more generic article) but even in its present form, I don't believe deletion is warranted. Rival (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per

WP:V, blogs are not acceptable as reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Per

WP:V, "blogs ... and similar sources are largely not acceptable." (emphasis mine) - the policy is worded strongly, but not unequivocally. Rhetorically, what WOULD be a reliable source for a phenomenon that is notable due to effects exclusive to blogger communities? Rival (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• keep. When I was accosted by "trout" bots a few months ago, this entry was by far the most succinct and accurate explanation I found, after extensive googling. I've also referred several friends to the entry, when they ran into a trout bot and, like me, had searched in vain for a clear explanation. So although perhaps it ought to be improved or merged with another page (I'm not familiar enough with the mores here to make a call on that), as an outsider/layman I definitely think the information contained is useful and ought not be erased outright. Jsmooth995 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I just made a new friend with one, lol.
  talk) 00:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep - when I get trouted, this is the only page with enough information and links about the phenomenon that I can point the other "victim" to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.209.47 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 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

Sir Bourgian Defense Forces

Sir Bourgian Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know quite what to make of this, but let's start with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources which would confirm notability. the skomorokh 19:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong / Speedy Delete- This article must be a joke, "Sir Bourgian" only has 5 hits on google (4 of them are wikipedia article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I have never heard of this organization before. I agree that it must be a joke.
  ^Talk 20:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as a likely hoax - none of the proper nouns here even yield good hits. Looks like a copy of another article, but I can't find where it might have come from. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The logos are from Romanian Land Forces and Estonian Defence League, but I think (from looking at the article history) it was written as a separate article, not copied from one of those, as it was created as a short, unwikified article then expanded. —Snigbrook 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax. Icewedge (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is boolsheet. Delete. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:09, 23 November 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. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Male

21st Century Male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film by director whose article was recently deleted. Prod was removed without explanation. No evidence of significant coverage within the article and none found from a Google search. Michig (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - This documentary is only 8 minutes long, certainly not worthy of an article.BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size is irrelevant. If a (hypothetical) 8-minute documentary happens to be highly controversial, is written about extensively in the press and wins awards, it's notable -- despite its size. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I give permission to anypne to restore this article once it has won an Oscar for 'best documentary', but until then, it will lie in the Wikipedia 'Recently Deleted' Pit.
  ^Talk 20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Non-notable documentary. Schuym1 (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 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 (excluding two

]

Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's well-written, but if it continues to have no useful links and no valid references, it's gonna have to be deleted.
  ^Talk 20:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Did you try to find sources or useful links? It's easy to delete without trying. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment for clarification purposes. Despite its name, this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean, similar to "College of Arts and Sciences" or "College of Engineering" that most U.S. universities have. Such entities are sometimes independently notable, but fairly rarely. In this case there is absolutely no evidence of notability of this college and in fact no sources, even of primary and non-independent nature, regarding its existence, apart from an empty link at the university's webpage. There is absolutely nothing to merge here as the article contains no verifiable information. The fact that the college exists is already mentioned in
  WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - colleges of universities, particularly medical colleges, are generally notable. This should have been tagged for sources rather than being proposed for deletion - we need to avoid systemic bias and time should be given for local sources to be found. A possible merge to the main University article is for talk page discussion.
  talk) 20:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

See my comment directly above yours. Nsk92 (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sound basis for your comments.

talk) 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Err, what? Which part of my comments exactly? And why exactly do they have no sound basis? Nsk92 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"this is neither a college nor a university in the sense this term is usually understood. Rather, this is an administrative subdivision (a group of departments) within a university, the kind that is usually headed by the Dean".

talk) 21:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

And why do you think that this statement is incorrect? That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply. If there is any record anywhere of the college being an independent degree granting institution, it would certainly deserve to be kept. But that is pretty clearly not the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Chinese government website[12] cited in the article does not say anything about the International Education College but only lists Xinjiang Medical University when providing data for foreign medical students admissions. Nsk92 (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you look at the main Xinjiang Medical University website[13], the college is listed there as an item in the same menu as Department of Physical Education and Department of humanities and social science. It is pretty clear that the college has is an entity of similar administrative status within the university as these departments. Nsk92 (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"That is what both the main article about the university and the main university webpage appear to imply" - quite; you have made an assumption from the article rather than a conclusion based on fresh information. I suggest that this article awaits the provision of sourced information, which is likely to take longer than a few days; meanwhile its continued existence causes no problem.

talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

See my comment above. No, I did not just make an assumption based on the article. I also looked at the university's website, at the chinese government website cited and did some google searching. There is nothing to indicate that the college is an idependent degree-granting institution and every reason to think otherwise. If someone finds some sources to show that I am wrong about this (and I did look myself), I would certainly withdraw my nomination. But based on what I have found so far, I am quite sure that I am correct. Nsk92 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect to
  WP:ORG, the college deosn't meet the notability inclusion guidelines. The article itself does not have any referenced material for merge, so a redirect would make the most sense. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That is a possibility, but this seems a rather unlikely search term to need a redirect. In fact, the title of this article starts with the name of the university, so the autocomplete feature in the search field would take care of this even if someone did do a search like this. Nsk92 (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but redirects are cheap. And to make sure my stance is clear for the closing admin, I don't support keeping this article, and if the answer isn't redirection, I'd support deletion as information is already int he main article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would prefer it to be "delete and redirect" (that is, delete page history and then redirect). I have seen a few cases where an AfD resulted in a redirect, but the page history was not deleted and then the redirect was quickly undone and quite a bit of a mess ensued. Nsk92 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Xinjiang Medical University. Even though there is a distinct lack of currently references, the basic description at the XMU article could be expanded with this information. The information is most probably accurate, so I see this as the difference between being able to verify something, compared to having already verified it. I'd add the appropriate {{unreferenced section}} tag at the time of the merge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is really nothing to merge in this article that is not already mentioned in the Xinjiang Medical University article, which does have a subsection about the college of international education. Nsk92 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would keep the Chinese name of the program, the number of students that it admits, and the length of the program. None of that information is present in the XMU main article, and all of it would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to merge, per Nsk92 -- the medical school is notable, but not individual administrative parts of it, unless there's some really special reason. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This is the only college in the

As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. 220.171.32.76 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments struck, as they were made by the creator of the article, who is currently indef blocked. Please unstrike if you feel I have acted inappropriately. //roux   12:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the only college in the Xinjiang which is responsible for recruiting the international students from Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, Mongolia, Kazakhstan and other countries. The name used in different countries for admission into the university is that of International Education College. So I think this college has a worldwide notability. As the name of the article has been changed from International Education College of Xinjiang Medical University"to Xinjiang Medical University: International Education College" it does not show the original name of the college. Plz reverse the name of the institution and keep it in Wikipedia. Plus you can check how much traffic this page is getting from users of Internet worldwide. I think Wikipedia is for the users and not the Administrators discussing whether it has notability or not. This page is having traffic from internet users it means that this is being viewed and helpful for people around the world. Thanks very much If you will consider my request plus i will also be posting some examples from different wiki articles which are not degree awarding institutions but they have pages at Wikipedia. As the name of the article has been changed recently by Compendium wmc so i could not get data for the previous article name as the program i use is still in beta. So i cannt post the original numbers but the traffic for October 2008 was >500. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 12:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an encyclopedia. Page hit counts are irrelevant. What is relevant is reliable sources to establish notability independent of the university per

WP:ORG. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I agree with User:Whpq that page hits are irrelevant but as they have been quoted I think it is important that they are quoted correctly - the actual number of page hits for the article in October was 162 not "over 500" and most of these hits correspond to edits in the page history. Nancy ^talk 10:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you take this college's name in Chinese there are plenty of verifble sources - the fact that said sources are not in the English language does not mean this article should be deleted - we are not looking for notablilty in the Western world. Please note that the founder of Wikipedia wants to create the sum of all human knowledge here, and if you look under the reasons for deletion, you can read the following "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." There are plenty of sources in the Chinese langauage. Let's not be culturally imperialistic. Moreover this style of college is represented if it is in the States or the UK - I would say that we shouldn't be trying to delete this articel but requesting verifible sources. Kunchan (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, as the header of this AfD says, you should have mentioned the fact that you were

WP:CANVASSed to participate in this AfD by the article's creator[14]. Second, if Chinese sources exist, please add them. I don't have a problem with sources being in languages other than English, but these sources still need to be produced and they haven't been. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: The article's creator,
  WP:CANVASSed by User:Burhan Ahmed or by anyone else, please make this fact known when !voting. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I agree with
  notability and is already covered in the main university article. Nancy ^talk 09:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment These are the links which can show you the notability of the college.

1. Dalian Medical University Website
2. A Chinese online MagazineBurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a translation in to English of the first link - not clear what notability is shown in it though. Second link seems to be dead. Nancy ^talk 15:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it is essetnially a trip report for a goodwill visit. As well, being an article from the campus news of a university doesn't really qualify this as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 27 November 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 Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geffen Records discography

Geffen Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Jive Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rap-focused, far from complete discographies, will be insanely long if ever completed. Totally unsourced as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it gets too long it can be split. Should be relatively easy to verify this information. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. If we can put some of the more-well known songs' album covers along the right-hand side, it will get rid of the big blank space there. And as Michig said, we can split it when it's done and it'll be easy to verify the songs.
  ^Talk 20:17, 22 November 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. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eqonomize!

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not well known enough to be included, plenty of other programs that are used by far more people do not meet the required standard for an article. (although that program looks pretty nice) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article has about 5 lines, then there's a 'see also' part that has one link. Then the only external link is to their home page!! Come on.
  ^Talk 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as non-notable software Bfigura ^(talk) 20:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources to be found. Google search brings very few if any reliable results.
  Talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:45, 23 November 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 Withdrawn Didn't realize that other labels had these too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Records discography

Atlantic Records discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rap and pop-centric discography, far from complete, will be a million miles long if ever completed. Redundant to Category:Atlantic Records albums, no other label has a list of this sort. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If it gets too long it can be split. Should be relatively easy to verify this information. --Michig (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually quite a lot of labels have similar lists. See Category:Discographies by record label. Whether that's a good thing or not, I'm not sure. By the way, the link to this discussion is not showing up on the article page.Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 22 November 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.

Brooklawn, Connecticut

Brooklawn, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is not classified by either the state of Connecticut nor the USGS GNIS as a populated place. I believe this does not merit a stand alone article. --Polaron | Talk 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely non-notable. ----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After some more review this seems to more worthy of a merge than a delete, consider this a merge/weak delete.----Brandon (TehBrandon) (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Can we verify that it's real? If so, this shouldn't be deleted; it's too small and insignificant to stand as its own article, but if it's real it should be merged or redirected to another article. I'm going to check for references. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I expected to find references, but there's nothing on Google Maps or Mapquest; and the GNIS only lists the Brooklawn Country Club and the Brooklawn Seventh Day Adventist Church. Find sources and it will be a good merge topic, but without sources we can't
    verify that it exists at all. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Brooklawn actually does exist as a sub-neighborhood of the "West Side" neighborhood of
  Bridgeport might be feasible. --Polaron | Talk 04:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect and possible merge the bit about the river to the Bridgeport article. This entry is nothing more than a map in prose. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect / Weak delete I did the same GNIS search and found no reference to Brooklawn as a defined place. If there is any other evidence, I will reconsider, but there seems to be nothing other than a country club and a church that use the name. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:44, 22 November 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.

Paul Rosenberg (murder)

Paul Rosenberg (murder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN, and poorly written article Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Poorly written is irrelevant to notability. Also I don't see the box on the page indicating it has been nominated for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Argh my script messed up. I'll add it in a bit. Computerjoe's talk 19:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone else did. Computerjoe's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Article lacks anything which asserts notability. Computerjoe's talk 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet
  talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete non-notable. People are murdered every day. Nothing outstanding about this case. Resolute 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless he was murdered by a famous killer, there is no reason to keep this.
  ^Talk 16:56, 22 November 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.

TMD (rapper)

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

Non-notable/

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:MUSIC criteria. Has no indication of any charted hits. No albums released by major labels or by significant independent labels. No indication of any major tour. No golden albums. Virtually no coverage in a google search, save this wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:MUSIC by a mile, google turns up jack. Probabally a COI as well, article was created by Msbmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (TMD's record label is called MSB Music). Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:40, 22 November 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.  Sandstein  18:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martynowicz

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

• Delete -
  DARTH PANDA^duel 20:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  WP:V.... all failed. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary's name appendix (and severely cull) if the origin of the name can be confirmed. Otherwise delete, majority of the article is links and discussing patriarchs instead of the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While granting that the obvious can sometimes be incorrect, I'll note that Martynowicz = Martyn + -owicz (son of) is transparent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still working on research for it, of course it is in my interest to have this subject matter available and there is actually relavence in terms of famous individuals, see: Suchekomnaty_Coat_of_Arm. The basic nature of it is due to the fact that this is my first submission. More content will be added/updated. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
    • Response. Might you mean
      DARTH PANDA^duel 21:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Response: How is it relevant? The family Martynowicz Falls under the Suchekomnaty Coat of Arms, how can that be anymore relevant? I did glance through them actually (WP: Links), however due to the fact that I am at work I cannot look at them in depth. Whenever I get off tonight 17:00EST I'll have a better opportunity to make my case. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2008 (EST)
        • Response. Following this logic, do you believe that every single family under a coat of arms should have a Wikipedia page? No such precedent has been set.
          DARTH PANDA^duel 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Response: Okay how about this, if thats the case then why should there be a wiki for any coat of arms? Or should it only be the important ones? Precedence is not justification for deletion is it? If thats the case then how was wiki started?. —Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
            • This is Wikipedia, not Wiki. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying. I don't believe the Coat of Arms should be deleted, I just believe the particular family name that you are touting is not notable and does not pass Wikipedia's notability requirements.
              DARTH PANDA^duel 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • Response: I am by no means solicting my last name, theres no information on it available to the public. I would say by no stretch of the imagination there are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people that are directly traceable back to some form of Martynowicz Lineage. How is this not notable?—Brian Martynowicz (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)
                • Before you continue to raise factors that aren't treated as relevant to establishing notability for Wikipedia's purpose, I'd like to suggest that you read the references others have left for you and use them as your guides. I've left a welcome message on your talk page to supply you with additional links to the ways of Wikipedia. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Largo, I saw your message thanks for the warm welcome. I checked your first arguement towards deletion and I think you are incorrect. I am in no way influencing someones opinion on the subject matter. I can see how it would be biased in terms of me having the last name, but I am merely providing information and not trying to sway someones opinion one way or another. I'll need more time to address the other guides unfortunately :(--Bmartynowicz (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nothing you'd written up to the point where I commented gave any reason to think that you were writing the article other than because it's your family name. But regardless of that, I was referring primarily to notability, not bias. The fact that someone who lived 300 years ago and had a surname has umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a basis for assessing notability. Having umpteen thousand descendants living today isn't a distinguishing feat for someone who lived 300 years ago. Notable families are along the lines of Kennedys (specifically, descendants of Joseph P.), Bushes (back to Prescott, at least), Rockefellers, Rothschilds, Barrymores, Gandhis, Bronfmans, Roosevelts (in no particular order). —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If "there's no information on it available to the public", as the article's creator is telling us, then this subject is unverifiable, in contraventional of our basic Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, which is a strong argument for deletion according to our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well nothing available to the public as far as information on the internet. Need more time to go to some hard copies.--70.17.201.201 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or Transwiki Delete, as there is no point to it. Or, if it has to be kept, transwiki to Wiktionary.
  ^Talk 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to do more through investigation, stupid life getting in the way. I wish there were some people out there to maybe help me out....--Bmartynowicz (talk) 19:14, 24 November 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.  Sandstein  17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmaster

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

)

Non notable company producing non notable cash machines.. Paste (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. Most of the "sources" are www.cashmaster.com.--Pecopteris (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's very spammy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article has reliable sources, including http://www.business7.co.uk/business-news/breaking-business-news/2007/12/14/cashmaster-spends-300-000-on-new-machinery-97298-20251274/ and http://www.extendedretail.com/eu/pastissue/article.asp?art=269375&issue=189 As well, the company has been discussed in the Scottish Parliament, as verified by the links to that site. The fact that some of the references are to the company's own site does not detract from the fact that notability is established by the reliable sources. Similarly, "spamminess" can be fixed like any other style issue, and is not an argument for AfD. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - one of the reasons why I like to delete spam is because, in my view, any article that is created as spam will be forever tainted by it. The only way to properly de-taint the text is to start again, from scratch, with a neutral author. I realise that the present text could be altered so that it doesn't look like spam, but I argue that as long as it's built on spam, it remains tainted. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. An article's creator does not own the article. An existing stub is always a help for a good editor who wants to expand an article. And sometimes articles that look like spam are written by inexperienced editors with no connection to the subject. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete = Cashmaster is mentioned in passing in a sentence in the Scottish Parliament discussion. (The discussion lasted over eight hours.) The Extended Retail Solutions article is a press release as is the Business7 article. iExtenso says on its about page: "iXtenso presents all of the suppliers, products and services demanded by the retail sector while featuring this information in-depth." Therefore, the presence of Cashmaster products on their page isn't meaningful. (You might as well link to Amazon.com.) Portfolio has more than half a million company profiles, so this link also doesn't show notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is factual and accurate to the companies history as per the references and further research. Companies such as De la rue, Wincor Nixdorf, and companies under the Group Halma PLC have analogous pages and citations. Please note: Spam is an attempt to force a message on people who would not otherwise choose to receive it, this cannot be regarded as spam as the information is historic, meaningful and serves a purpose. (Cone28 (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cone28 (talk • contribs)

• Keep In reply to 'Paste's comment that the company produces "non notable cash machines". In actual fact the company produce machines that count cash by weighing it. A genuine and notable alternative to counting by hand and a friction banknote counters. The wikipedia page for this actually comments on weight based counting. Surely this means the technology is in fact notable. Stewart1985 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I am aware cash counting machines that weigh the cash are by n means restricted to this company.Paste (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right in this fact but as stated previously there are numerous reasons for the posting to be valid. Saying that the cash machines are non notable would bring other posts into question. If the machines were mentioned on their own there would be no requirement for the 'cashmaster' post I can agree with you there. But as there are other reasons for the post being made in the first place it would only be neglegant not to mention what the company do and would in turn make the post a waste of time. The original post for the technology has been clearly referenced. Stewart1985 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Stewart1985 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article. Cone28 has edited only this page and the Cashmaster article, except for edits to add a link to the Cashmaster article to the article for the town of Rosyth and the article for banknote counters. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have never heard of this company before, so why have an article on it? You may as well write an article on the family-run sweet shop at the end of my street.
  ^Talk 16:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable and encyclopedic entry on a company more than 30 years old. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel compelled to comment again,
    User:TopGearFreak is correct the arguments being used would mean that we should have an article on every company that any info can be found about on the web, albeit he is possibly being sarcastic to make a point. User:ChildofMidnight seems to be saying that we keep any article that is written in an 'encyclopedic' form and is on a company that has existed for 30 years. Cashmaster is a reputable company, I am sure, who produce good cash counting machines but that does not mean they should appear in an encyclopedia. There must also be at least some doubt about whether the two main contributors to the article are of a neutral point of view as expressed by User:Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth. Paste (talk) 08:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

My argument would support keeping any article on a company 30 years old that is notable and has an encyclopedic article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a logical and sensible position to take. I agree with it entirely; we should keep articles that are encyclopedic and are about a notable subject. However, I don't think that this article is about a notable subject, and much of the article reads like an unencyclopedic advertisement, so I think this article fails to match the position that we should keep encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to fix any elements in the article that aren't appropriate. As far as its notability, it's not a clear cut case. It has some citations, but they could be better. At least we strongly agree about what we disagree about. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I must agree with
  User:TopGearFreak that he has never heard of the company before as a reason for deletion, this is surely not a valid arguement when the whole point in an encyclopedia is to educate and inform. I hardly believe that anybody has heard of every company that has an article about them on wikipedia. Nor do I feel that an international company with offices in many different countries can be compared to a family run sweet shop with a handful of employees. Stewart1985 (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The discussion is solidly on the notability of the corporation. I looked at the article's references and commented on them above. The references barely give any information at all. The offices could be mail drops for all we know. (This is very common, and not a slight on Cashmaster, but it does mean that they're not some continent-striding behemoth. :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Neither myself or the references claim that the company is 'some continent-striding behemoth' and neither do the rules for wikipedia state that the company in question has to be a worldwide cash cow. My argument is that comparing this company to a sweet shop is not a necessary argument to make for deletion. The fact that it is not factual is one thing and the blatantly obvious point that it is clear sarcasm just supports my point that it is not a valid argument. Just like a wikipedia article this argument must be based on fact and notability, not on someones personal opinion of the company. I'm sure there are many other companies with articles on wikipedia with one office and less staff than
    Cashmaster article with a much greater number of references can be edited in a way that is deemed more acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewart1985 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that's considered to be persuasive. Speaking to the other comments made here, I feel that you're focusing on the way people are saying things and not on what they say. Please look beyond an editor's humorous ways of putting things and engage directly with the meat of the arguments. There are no references that show notability in the article. My comment at 07:20, 18 November 2008 details this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Comment I wasn't just commenting on just the suitability of the refernces but also on yours and
    User:TopGearFreak is only personal opinion. As for your comment on the size of the organisation this has no bearing on the argument whether you are relating it to the references or not. The article doesn't claim the company is a massive international company only that they do have offices in other countries. The size of these is not important to the notability of the company and therefore I feel it brings nothing to the argument mentioning it especially in a sarcastic way. Stewart1985 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 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. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science-advisor.net

Science-advisor.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability on two Google searches and no results on Google News and Google books. Schuym1 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Don't see the point of keeping this. It's not special.
  ^Talk 16:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Article is an unreferenced stub; there does not appear to be significant coverage of the site (or the company that owns it) in reliable secondary sources. —Snigbrook 17:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Schuym1 (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, besides the lacking userbase of 500, the claim it's the largest database of its kind is not surprising, from the FAQ: "Your can search and download all articles of arXiv.org (physics, mathematics, computer science) and PubMedCentral (biology, medicine)." In other words, they've aggregated the work of others... - Mgm|^(talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this seems to strongly fail
  WP:WEB. While indexing sites can certainly be notable (see Web of Science), this one isn't. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - It's an index site, written a little like an ad, and unreferenced.
  ^WS _(contribs) 22:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete (
  MuZemike (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Website does not assert notability, needs 3rd party trusted press coverage about the association and notable reasons for inclusion. Google does not find usable references. - DustyRain (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]