Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Odom
- Gene Odom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable subject fails WP:BIO. Article appears to be for advertising for a book and serves no other purpose. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep it appears that the subject may pass WP:BIO: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The review of his book in part by Rolling Stone certainly counts under this, but there seems to be precious little interesting biographical material about the guy. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (pending). I would prefer to give BW2417 more time to understand that more quality content is needed so that we can make a better-informed decision. The user is new and understandably having some learning curve issues. I believe he has misunderstood my suggestion to use Odom's book as a source...ending up in inappropriately placed links in reference sections. I take responsibility for misguiding him. However, he has just gotten a Welcome a few days ago and it may take a little bit for him to read & digest it. He (or another contributor) will need to be forthcoming with relevant quality content for the article..soon. He needs to begin communicating as well. I suggest giving him a week or two. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability as author is demonstrated by the references. The article discusses the book, but is not an advertisement for it. --Eastmain (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : It is plausible that Gene Odom 's writing was influential in Lynyrd Skynyrd's Hall of Fame induction. A quote from the Rolling Stone 2002 article..
- "Odom's remembrance is both loving and pointed, as he makes his case for the band as the most glaring of omissions from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, a slight he suspects was prompted by their association with the confederate flag. It's an image that Odom says was pushed on the band by its label as a marketing ploy, but one that was also a regional point of pride. 'I think that's what held the boys out of the Rock Hall,' Odom says."1
- Skynyrd's 2005-2006 invitation & inductment into the Hall of Fame might not be a pure coincidence. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Just because someone wrote a book, it doesn't mean they automatically warrant a Wikipedia article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Attempt at notability through association. Libs (talk) 03:02, 22 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inner Surge
- Inner Surge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Signals Screaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bryan Sandau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Scott Taylor (Inner Surge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No assertion of notability that I saw, that meets the Wikipedia:Notability (music), but maybe I missed something. I didn't find anything in Google News. There has been enough debate about notability on the talk page to make me keen to bring this to a wider audience, rather than tag it for speedy deletion. Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I am no expert on where to source material for indie bands, but I have looked at all the material, and it looks suspiciously like pretty blatant advertising complete with spam links. The principal contributor, User:Portalzoom appears to be a single-purpose account for the creation of this walled garden. It appears to be a piece of soapboxing for a band whose notability is not entirely well-established by the article - could be just another myspace band... ;-) There are copious external links to Cyclone Records, and another reviewers whose importance, credibility and independence are not easy to verify. In fact, many are on Cyclone Records' own servers; some appear to be blogs, personal websites or fansites. A Gsearch gives 559 Ghits, and there are some potentially validating links there which someone more into the Indie-metal scene should evaluate. I suspect that it may come down to a cleanup without delete. However, if delete, the article for their album Signals Screaming, and two redirect links Bryan Sandau and Scott Taylor should go as well - I have taken the liberty of adding them above. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:06, 22 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan areas of Egypt
- Metropolitan areas of Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete list of large cities in Egypt, purely subjective in what is "metropolitan" however Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant to Category:Metropolitan areas of Egypt. Any additional content, if added, would likely be more useful in improving List of cities in Egypt. --Polaron | Talk 02:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Polaron, as nothing more than a misplaced category. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless wikified. Nobonobo (talk) 02:38, 21 July 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 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanie Twell
- Stephanie Twell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete does participation in - and even winning - a junior competition confer notability? I think that age-limited competitions are not the sort that do, otherwise many under-16 or under-18 footballers, little leaguers, and high school/college athletes would be deemed notable, contrary to the normal outcomes at afd. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An interesting question... does participation in - and even winning - an international junior competition confer notability? I think that if the answer is no, then all junior athletes who have won an international junior competition, but not a senior competition, should be deleted. For example, under these criteria, Mercy Cherono, Sule Utura and Genzebe Dibaba should also be deleted as these women are also notable for winning junior competitions.
- However, even less notable are Jordan Hasay, Christine Babcock and German Fernandez. Hasay, Babcock and Fernandez have never even won a significant international junior competition. They have not achieved results in Olympics, Outdoor World Championships, Indoor World Championships, World Cross Country Championships, nor have they even won World Juniors or Junior Cross Country titles, so quite clearly they are far less notable than Stephanie Twell, Genzebe Dibaba and Sule Utura. So what is the rule here? Quite clearly, if Stephanie Twell is not notable, then Jordan Hasay, Christine Babcock and German Fernandez are even less than notable and should deleted. My own opinion is that IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics are significantly more notable than Pokemon (for example), but there might be a case for deleting Jordan Hasay, Christine Babcock and German Fernandez who are only notable at a national level.
- I would suggest that the person suggesting the deletion of winners of the IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics should start with the far less notable national junior athletes like Jordan Hasay, Christine Babcock and German Fernandez, before deleting World Junior Champions like Stephanie Twell. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your final point. Let's discuss it with a noteworthy one. If Stephanie Twell is not notable, then that's a precedent for the others. Starting at the less notable end and wittling away at them is far more likely to produce inconsistent results, in my view. Also, if we decide she is notable, we'll have started discussing where to draw the line. If you think quite a lot of articles are affected by this reasoning, let's advertise this AfD at WP:ATHLETE and at the relevant wikiprojects, also. AndyJones (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see your reasoning. However if we are looking for a precedent, I notice that in the case of Jordan Hasay, there was already a proposed deletion and the decision was to Keep. Perhaps WikiProject Running need to be involved in setting some clear guidelines otherwise we could end up with the winners of World Juniors (such as Stephanie Twell) being deleted and the forth place finisher in the same race (Jordan Hasay)[1], being kept. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The wording of WP:ATHLETE is slightly odd. It refers to athletes who compete in professional leagues. What does a league sport mean here? Does this include IAAF Golden League? In which case, Stephanie Twell meets notability requirements, as an athlete that competes in IAAF Golden League athletic meetings.[2]. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To quote WP:ATHLETE, "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports."; Stephanie has been selected for the 2008 Summer Olympics [3] -- Ratarsed (talk) 21:17, 19 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Identified Tour 2008
- Identified Tour 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A typical tourdates listing for a future Vanessa Hudgens tour to bunch of state fairs. I prodded this and it was recreated. I would like to argue against a redirect since '"Identified Tour 2008" -wikipedia' gets zero Google hits. I searched without quotes and found nothing to warrant an article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no proof that this tour even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Only sources for tour I can find are blogs ... nothing reliable.
Kww (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per WP:N There is already an article on Vanessa Hudgens. That is good enough. Artene50 (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable by itself. Nobonobo (talk) 02:40, 21 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treating macular degeneration with electrical stimulation
- Treating macular degeneration with electrical stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article is set out like a project, referencing only an educational establishment's FAQ or other WP articles. Assumption is complete original research (points eight and nine at WP:DEL#REASON) - possibly a college paper or coursework? Booglamay (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Edit conflict means article was both PRODded and taken to this AfD. PROD was for similar reason: this is some kind of thesis and thus OR. Ros0709 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks suspiciously like a copyright violation, but would otherwise be an essay. Pointless to redirect this cumbersome unlikely namespace to Macular degeneration. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since nom there have been references added (including identical ones to those at Macular degeneration). This doesn't change the essay-ness of this article though. Booglamay (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't see how this doesn't constitute WP:OR. I'd love to be shown otherwise but I'm honestly not expecting it. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not coursework or OR, but advertising. I edited it to display the references, which clarifies things considerably. It's a publicity piece for http://acudoctor.com by the obvious COI User:Acumed. (does not seem to be copyvio--he rewrote it considerably from the material on his website). Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, although the two purported references to work showing the efficacy are to his and another acupuncture web site. I'd consider it unsuitbale for inclusion in an article on the disease until there is something actually published in a peer-reviewed journal DGG (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. COI, only notable and verifiable content to be merged into macular degeneration. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 22 July 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 A7 by Tawker. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fanny Grace
- Fanny Grace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previously up for AfD in March with a result of no consensus due to some Kurt Weberism (no offense, Kurt) and the presence of a decent length CMT bio. However, besides that, I am finding no reliable third party sources that are more than mere trivial mentions of the duo, so I feel that they still don't meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The page is also written in a non-neutral tone and has not seen improvement since its initial creation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:26, 17 July 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. Wizardman 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The George Nethercutt Foundation
- The George Nethercutt Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedy deleted as both CSD A7 (no assertion of importance) and G11 (blatant advertising - org spam), then taken to a deletion review, then sent here by the deleting admin (me). Fails WP:ORG. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable foundation. Been in existence less than a year, sole interesting fact is awarding of 4 expense-paid trips to DC to local area students. Press coverage on Google News and Lexis (checking major US and world publications) nonexistent. RayAYang (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" are provided, as per WP:NOTE. All I can find from the article and my own Googling is a couple of mentions of the Foundation's January 22 press release [4][5] --Stormie (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to George Nethercutt. He is clearly a notable figure as a former US House of Reps member; this Foundation is clearly an activity of his which should be mentioned in his article; the content has been merged. So redirect it, and whether the content is excessive or overly advertisement-like in tone is an editing matter, not a deletion matter. --Stormie (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the original author of the article. I do not see how the fact that the organization is new militates against it's being notable. The efforts of persons such as Nethercutt, who are expected to run again for high office, are gnerally notable. There are articles about such insignificant organizations as the Constantian Society without issues. I do not have a dog in this fight except that I have spoken with persons who were involved with the organization who addressed a chamber of commerce meeting. The Leo Ryan award is allowed an article. It seems that this organization is being unfairly excluded.--Counsel (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the Constantian Society does indeed seem negligible. -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article on The George Nethercutt Foundation is longer than the article on Nethercutt himself, though. Why don't you start off with some information on the Foundation in George Nethercutt? --Stormie (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm waiting to see if Counsel (Floridan? what the hell...) can come up with anything to show that this organization meets the notability requirements of WP:ORG. He/she seems like a smart fellow, I was expecting better arguments in this AfD than the fact that other articles exist. If specific notability assertations related to Wikipedia policy cannot be brought forward, I'm afraid the article will be deleted. (Or, at least, I will !vote delete. But that seems to be the direction of this AfD anyways.) Tan ǀ 39 02:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the sole "media article" that's cited is something from "Talk Radio 950 KOZE-AM". But it doesn't read like something that was read (or "talked") on the radio; instead, it reads like a mere press release. Is there any independent coverage of this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete no indication of importance or significance, just like yesterday when it was speedied. No reliable sources - existing sources are not RS, just like yesterday. ukexpat (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but not speedy. There is enough of an implied importance in awarding scholarships. Now, that's not enough to keep an article here, by multiple previous decisions, but still, not a speedy. DGG (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved I moved the content to the George Nethercutt page as the writing is on the wall, as it were, here and that sounded like a reasonable solution. If someone is so inclined would he or she correct the redirects at Nethercutt Fellow and Nethercutt Foundation so that they direct to the section as it now stands. I Have been wikibonked for a while and do not remember how to do that.--Counsel (talk) 21:06, 18 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Humane Society of Allen County
- The Humane Society of Allen County (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a non-notable local chapter of the Humane Society. No third-party references. Tom (talk - email) 22:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This article should have been prodded first, not nominated for deletion. It can potentially be made acceptable, and the editors should be given an opportunity to fix the problems first. Right now it doesn't establish notability, it's effectively unsourced, and reads like an advertisement (or reads as if folks with a conflict of interest have been editing it). All those things could be fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many local humane societies in the United States at the county level, and there are over 3,000 counties in the United States. Do you suggest each one deserves an article? Unless there is something particularly extraordinary about this office compared with the others, it is not notable. --Tom (talk - email) 01:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs editing, not deletion. Willvista (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I quote from WP:ORG "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included." Nothing in this article suggests that this is an unusually special or controversial chapter of the Humane Society. We might merge some of the data into a more general entry on the topic. RayAYang (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear-cut violation of WP:ORG, and a best-case redirect to the Humane Society or Allen County, Ohio. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 18 July 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) 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever You Like (T.I. song)
- Whatever You Like (T.I. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
:Swing Your Rag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles should be deleted as it fails notability according to WP:MUSIC#Songs. There is no such thing as a music single "released on MySpace", which really doesn't matter since, according to policy, for a song to be notable it needs to have been listed on a notable music chart (Hot 100 e.g.). Merging these articles to the Paper Trail would be useless as well, since they are already mentioned. See also:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What's Up, What's Happening
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Up
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground (Lindsay Lohan song)
Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 21:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - According to the source, http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1590866/20080714/t_i_.jhtml, the article states it will be the second single. SE KinG (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you didn't read or ignored what I just said above, so I will repeat for you: doesn't matter if the songs are released as a single or not!!! In for a song to be notable it needs to "have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups", as Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs states. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playground (Lindsay Lohan song) had a similar situation to this one as well. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, songs haven't charted. No notability, then, per WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a merge of any WP:reliably sourced content, and/or redirect to the album as plausible search terms to take users to where the songs "are already mentioned", be an option? -- saberwyn 00:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has serious crystal ball issues. It doesn't pass WP:MUSIC as of today and that is the point. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lacks notability. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 00:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song has been charted, therefore it completes the WP:MUSIC#Songs. SE KinG (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Afd withdrawn only for "Swing Your Rag" (which should be titled as "Swing Ya Rag" actually); it does meet WP:MUSIC#Songs at this point. The Afd still stays only for Whatever You Like (T.I. song).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More than one of the arguments to keep concede that this article is lacking in sources - which ironically enough is the primary contention of the nomination. Shereth 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Variant texts in Scientology doctrine
- Variant texts in Scientology doctrine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
See prior discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altered texts in Scientology doctrine. The article appears to be mostly WP:OR, and relies heavily on primary sources, and an WP:OR analysis of those primary sources. Has not received significant discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, though of course I am amenable to being proven wrong about this point, would love to see the sources that go into detail discussing this topic. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article just needs more secondary sources.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is your assertion that this topic has received significant coverage and discussion in multiple secondary sources, could you please provide evidence to back that up? Cirt (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is sourced. If anoyone feels it needs more sources, that is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the article isn't even that well sourced at the moment. Edward321 (talk · contribs) - can you demonstrate that this subject has been significantly discussed in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I left notes for Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs) and Edward321 (talk · contribs) at their talkpages. I still think that this article and its topic do not satisfy the main point of WP:NOTE, namely that the topic lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TravellingCari 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for want of reliable sources establishing the significance of the subject. WillOakland (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has a lot of information, the only problem is it lacks proper citing, something that can be fixed. Willvista (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it can be fixed, could you please cite a secondary source satisfying WP:V/WP:RS that discusses this topic? Cirt (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, but unless an independent source exists (and I'll bet someone in the Freezone has made one) it doesn't meet WP:N. Even if it did, I don't think this article belongs here as it is getting past the level of detail needed about any religion. If lots of sources exist or this can be shown to be a major topic of discussion somewhere, I'll change. Otherwise Delete. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article references published materials which are the subject of the article, these can be confirmed by anyone wishing to verify the voracity of the article. Those I have checked are correct. As to level of detail I cannot understand how anything can be too detailed. As to discussion what is stated is fact, Scientology text does vary over time and this is demonstrated by example. It is not matter for discussion it is undeniable fact. (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Dire13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- At present the article does not show that the topic has been discussed in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, as per WP:NOTE: significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Can you cite any secondary sources that do discuss the subject in depth? Cirt (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete At first glance I was about to close this discussion as near-unanimous keep. Now that I have read the article and the discussion I am convinced that the lack of a response to Cirt's well argued nomination and polite requests to keep !voters to produce reliable sources establishing notability indicates that this article is of questionable notability Dire13 argues that the texts whose notability is in question undeniably exist, but I do not believe that this is enough to keep, as we need reliable material with which to verify the content of the article. Fahrenheit451, Edward321 and Willvista argue that sourcing is a surmountable WP:PROBLEM, but we cannot use this alone as a rationale to keep articles as it allows well-written but unverifiable articles to be included in the encyclopaedia. The burden of proof for reliable coverage is on the inclusionist. Trusting Cirt's expertise in Scientology-related matters, I default to deleting the article unless proof of notability is forthcoming.Skomorokh 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails any test of notability. What we have here is a fringe of a fringe that has only lasted this long because we are overly-tolerant of criticism of Scientology and overly-quick to ignore all rules in the area of criticism of Scientology. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Skomorokh, but as no consensus instead of keep. Indication of notability is just lacking. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:57, 24 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mission SF Federal Credit Union (organization)
- Mission SF Federal Credit Union (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete not notable per WP:CORP. Only has two news mentions but from minor sources at best. Most of the sources in the article are from the organization itself. WP:CORP states, "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization...Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable.." Ave Caesar (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The organization is notable. It received national coverage from CUNA which is a reliable source. As an organization, it has low importance but it's notable enough and it has had a lot of media coverage. Willvista (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)— Willvista (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete as non-notable. "Federally insured and federally chartered" like every other bank and credit union, some PR language about "fostering a spirit of cooperation, self-empowerment, and individual financial responsibility", and a list of services offered by most if not all banks and credit unions. --CliffC (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's part of the San Francisco Bay Area Wikiproject. Pedia134 (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC) — Pedia134 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The One Feather Tail of Miss Gertrude McFuzz
- The One Feather Tail of Miss Gertrude McFuzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There is no reason for an entire article to be dedicated to one song from a musical, especially when the a lot of the content in the article has nothing to do with the song itself. Juansidious (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Seussical. Not notable enough for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to musical Seussical. Fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. The article is unnotable by itself. Artene50 (talk) 09:38, 18 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Quillo
- Alex Quillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Two sentence article on a footballer who plays for a reserve team in the non-fully professional third tier in Spain, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Was originally prodded, but as happens so often, it was removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, WP:COI is possible given the username.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Juansidious (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete COI, non-notable athlete per WP:ATHLETE. (And how can so many editors possibly leave behind so many red linked categories? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 21:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Jimbo[online] 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BanRay 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lacks reliable sources and thus fail WP:V and WP:N as well. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 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.
Angelo Parenti
The result was delete. AfD nomination withdrawn. Article speedy deleted as hoax under CSD G3 Matilda talk 06:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Angelo Parenti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pure invention. No rider of this name known to the website of his supposed team, nor on cyclingnews.com, nor on cyclingwebsite.net; not in current TdF, yet alone a stage winner, and rather than having won 2 world titles, he is unheard of on the UCI website. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Pretty obvious evidence that this is a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently it cannot be speedied while it is CfD'ed, although it clearly deserves to be. Can I, in that case, withdraw this and put up a CSD G3 instead, to get this patently invented crap off the site asap ? Kevin McE (talk) 23:25, 17 July 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 product of vanity press. DS (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Record of Val-Kyrie
Contested PROD. The book is not notable. The book is self-published with no significant reviews, nor has it won any awards or have any other attributes that would make it notable. A search through Google news, scholar and book find nothing. a web search turns up lots of listings for online booksellers. Whpq (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it describes an element of the book that also fails notability:
- Delete No reliable sources, author is a red link and likely to stay a red link. Also delate related article for lack of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 20:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:07, 17 July 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, not encyclopedic. Chillum 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nanoterrorism
- Nanoterrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Redundant article, supposedly about terrorism, but in fact only mentions accidental damage caused by fictional nanobots, such as is already covered by Grey goo KatieWay (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a neologism. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There was more article here some months ago, but largely it was unencyclopedic unreferencable original research. - Eldereft (cont.) 07:55, 21 July 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 for now, but it needs to be expanded beyond a dict-def to deal with issues brought up here. Chillum 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newbie
- Newbie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Very widely used term, but it's still an undersourced dicdef with a trivia list. I can't see it expanding beyond a dicdef. Has also been tagged for cleanup for a year with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 20:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Sources are available that cover it [6], Evan Morris, "Computers in the '90s: Internet Lingo for a 'Newbie,'" Newsday (February 21, 1995), Chris Mann & Fiona Stewart, Internet Communication and Qualitative Research: A Handbook for Researching Online, Learning the Lingo of the Electronic Age Magazine, Reid Goldsborough; Reading Today, Vol. 21, August-September 2003 etc etc etc -neon white talk 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete low quality definition plus trivia. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional keep I would think a term like this would have a lot of sources available about it. But if improvement doesn't happen quickly I'll change my vote. JuJube (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per first four words of nom.--Otterathome (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep it is a notable term but, the article still looks primarily like what The Hammer describes. A definite cleanup candidate and perhaps the entomology could be fleshed out. The uses in popular culture thing probably doesn't belong although a section on similar terms may be useful (sort of see also: Probie) for instance. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's so commonly used that for use to not have something on this word would indicate we should delete the page on Wikipedia itself next, obviously I'm not really suggesting that but instead showing the term newbie is more wel known then Wikipedia, thus should have it's own article. Series premiere (remake) (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Widely used in a number of contexts. DGG (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see anything useful here beyond a definition, etymology, and examples of usage, which is exactly what I would expect to see in Wiktionary. The useful, sourced content would be better transferred to the entry there.--Michig (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see this all the time online, my friends even say "noob". I think you can look into the "Internet Slang Dictionary" and it would say something on it. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The article at present (at least the parts supported by references) is a dicdef. It could be expanded beyond that butthis article doesn't seem to be on that course. The NUB bit is a non-sequiter. It doesn't relate to newbie except that they may share some linguistic common roots (a claim neither asserted in the article nor supported by the sources). The source cited is about some SPU getting his dolphins in 30 days. Never in a million years would a COB be caught dead calling unqualified sailors nubs in print, so I'm not sure the source helps to verify the text too much. Also, in a few years there will be some good research on the subject of "noobs" in online environments (from rhetoric and communications standpoints), but the research isn't published yet. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, dicdif. This belongs on Wiktionary, not here; simply providing a dictionary definition (whether for slang or otherwise) is not an encyclopedia's role. I'll also note that most of the keep arguments come down to 'this is a real widely-used word', which (while true) isn't a meaningful argument to keep a dicdif. Establish is a real word, too, but we have no article on it, because there is nothing encyclopedic to say about the term. if this article is to be kept, it need to be (somehow) expanded beyond simply a definition of and source for the term, with sources. --Aquillion (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm off to stub the article, remove OR and SYN. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in case it wasn't clear above, the policy I'm appealing to in support of deletion is WP:DICDEF. Protonk (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. I really don't see this going beyond a dicdef. "N00b" is already mentioned in Leet, and I can't think of any other encyclopedic relevance to the word. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are sources that cover the emergence and use of the term which would take it beyond a dict def. Though most link it to noob so a redirect would be appropriate. --neon white talk 13:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Newbie is the original term so would suggest that instead of a redirect to noob it should be the other way around. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there are sources that cover the emergence and use of the term which would take it beyond a dict def. Though most link it to noob so a redirect would be appropriate. --neon white talk 13:32, 22 July 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 G3 as hoax, by Happyme22. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anawatazi
- Anawatazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems like a hoax. All hits on Google are from Wikipedia. --aktsu (t / c) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Clear hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:36, 17 July 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 G12 by Matthewedwards, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Profile Rock
- Profile Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
copyright violation; unsourced; notabilty not claimed Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 19:28, 17 July 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. After ten days on AfD and extensive discussion, this article about a fictional character in a roleplaying game (the content about a real-world historical title that was briefly inserted has not stuck) is still only sourced to three of the game's rulebooks. This means that it fails WP:N, a guideline according to which the topic of an article must generally have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In view of this, the arguments of the minority of editors advocating a "keep" would have to be persuasive indeed to prevent deletion. That, they are not. With the notable exception of DGG, who makes an interesting WP:SS argument (although one that would amount to inherited notability, which I think is not generally accepted), they either amount to WP:WAX or otherwise fail to address the issue of the specific sourcing requirements of WP:N. I'm therefore required per WP:DGFA to discount most "keep" opinions and to find that we have a consensus to delete. Sandstein 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Emperor of Mankind
- Emperor of Mankind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 game articles. As such, it is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The complaints you have raised only seem to require a revision of the article, not a deletion. The Emperor is a very important character in the Warhammer 40k Universe. Deletion would be rash and injudicious. Sfrostee 00:33, 13 July 2008
- Lack of notability is fatal to an article, not the common cold. It would be rash to keep articles with no assertion of notability and no potential for future notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:V and seems to pass WP:N. Article has been around for a long time and has been worked on by many people. I can see that it could be written better, but AfD for deletion?... nah!--Pmedema (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah! Let's delete it! Who cares that it's the single most important character in the Imperium. Who cares that it's the central to the plot and the entire 40k Universe, without which, the game/universe would collapse in on itself! <Grossly uncivil comment removed. — Satori Son> ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.140.1 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.32.140.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I know zilch about this game, but it seems to me that the central character in such a major game is a keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep requires some kind of evidence that it is notable, such as a link to creator commentary, or an article on the character and how it was designed. If it has none of those things, it isn't notable, no matter how "important". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term gets 2,390,000 Google hits and all seem to refer to this very character. Of course, I didn't check all the pages, but I did scroll down a few pages and pretty much all I saw relate back to Warhammer 40,000. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete. No demonstration of notability through sources independent of Games Workshop (or its subsidiaries). Don't forget about the OR there too (i.e. "... the character seems heavily influenced by ..." if true, find a source that says this, don't conclude it for yourself). --Craw-daddy | T | 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article does not demonstrate notability in the real world. --Phirazo 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable to people in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in-universe, nn fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world to Wikipedia editors) and What Wikipedia is. The article includes out of universe information by acknowledging the influence from Dune (although of course that claim does need to be cited) and does have a reference section. Thus, I believe the article has Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Now, whether or not we think an article on "Emperor of Mankind" as pertains to Warhammer is worthy of an article, please keep in mind that the title "emperor of mankind" has a larger historic use that in non-Warhammer settings that could be used to write a totally different article altogether, which suggests that this article should not autmatically be a red link. Please consider its use with regards to Genghis Khan, a Chinese emperor, a fictional emperor, another historical context, etc. So, I urge those participating in this discussion to also conisder the potential of a totally revised article that deals with this title in both the fictional and historical contexts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 game articles. As such, this fancrap is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetitious content is merged and redirected without deletion and as I indicated above, there are plenty of sources for use with an article of this title even if the focus is not on Warhammer, which is why deletion would not make sense. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate further. You have not yet convinced me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you open-minded to changing your stance? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am open to compelling arguments. If this is a setup for you to once again link to diffs from 2007 then I am not going to continue this discussion - sorry. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "emperor of mankind" is a serious hitsorical term used for various Asian monarchies and covered in scholarly books. Therefore, what I am proposing is not outright deleting the article and having a red-link but boldly revising it and as far as any refrences to Warhammer go, limiting that to a small section acknowledging that term is also used elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling argument. You provide no basis for your claims. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a logical reply, given [7], [8], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the links you should have provided in the first place! Why save them for a second comment???? Anyway, my argument from the other AFD applies here. I don't see why something else sharing the same name as the title of this article is grounds for keeping. The other article can easily be created at Emperor of Mankind (title) or some such. It's not even like any of the articles which link here are using the term in a sense other than Warhammer. Frankly, your argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the edit history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-look at my post directly above your first post in this discussion as I had indeed already posted these links in the first place. Also, preserving the edit history is tremendously useful for RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the links you should have provided in the first place! Why save them for a second comment???? Anyway, my argument from the other AFD applies here. I don't see why something else sharing the same name as the title of this article is grounds for keeping. The other article can easily be created at Emperor of Mankind (title) or some such. It's not even like any of the articles which link here are using the term in a sense other than Warhammer. Frankly, your argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the edit history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a logical reply, given [7], [8], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a compelling argument. You provide no basis for your claims. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "emperor of mankind" is a serious hitsorical term used for various Asian monarchies and covered in scholarly books. Therefore, what I am proposing is not outright deleting the article and having a red-link but boldly revising it and as far as any refrences to Warhammer go, limiting that to a small section acknowledging that term is also used elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I am open to compelling arguments. If this is a setup for you to once again link to diffs from 2007 then I am not going to continue this discussion - sorry. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you open-minded to changing your stance? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate further. You have not yet convinced me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetitious content is merged and redirected without deletion and as I indicated above, there are plenty of sources for use with an article of this title even if the focus is not on Warhammer, which is why deletion would not make sense. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) Please allow me to make sure I understand you. You want to keep this article on a Warhammer 40k topic because the term happens to be used in passing in some history books that have nothing to do with Warhammer 40k and because edit histories are useful for RfAs? I believe AFDs should discuss the content of the article in question. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that instead of just deleting the article altogether, let's boldly revise it to cover a historical relevant term and have a minor reference to the Warhammer stuff to acknowledge how in addition to be used by Mongol, Chinese, and Japanese emperors as one of their more hyperbolic titles, others have also used the title in works of fiction. As for the edito histories, there's no compelling reason to delete them unless if there is some kind of libelous or copyright violation stuff involved. Otherwise, we are encouraged per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT to go ahead and improve articles in question, which I would be willing to do here, but since it's on AfD, I thought I might as well get some other ideas on how best to do that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the content of this article has a place on Wikipedia per WP:N and WP:NOT. Since I don't believe the content has a place on Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to preserve it in the edit history of an unrelated/rewritten article or simply hide it as a redirect. The title of this article may be perfectly suitable for another topic after the content is deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot in edit histories doesn't belong, which is why it's in the edit history and not the main article. It would be much easier to just start working from this article than deleting and starting over when we can accomplish something positive by keeping the edit history public. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wholeheartedly disagree. The purpose of AFDs is to remove content which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. A rewrite over top of an article simply obscures that content. You might be able to convince me that your argument held weight in a broad sense if there was even a shred of salvageable content in the article in question, but in this specific case I don't think there is anything which can be used as the basis for a page on the historical term. If/when the hypothetical article for the title is written, I wouldn't think that even a single line should be dedicated to the Warhammer usage. I generally believe that a list of "In Popular Culture"/"In Fiction"/"Trivia" strongly detracts from the credibility of an otherwise fine article on an academic topic. Once again, it all comes back to the fact that I don't think any of this fancrap has a place on an encyclopedia which strives to be a legitimate resource, and I believe that leaves us at an impasse. Please reply if you like, but, unless you have a new, entirely different argument to present, I don't think this thread is going to lead either one of us to change our opinion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot in edit histories doesn't belong, which is why it's in the edit history and not the main article. It would be much easier to just start working from this article than deleting and starting over when we can accomplish something positive by keeping the edit history public. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe the content of this article has a place on Wikipedia per WP:N and WP:NOT. Since I don't believe the content has a place on Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to preserve it in the edit history of an unrelated/rewritten article or simply hide it as a redirect. The title of this article may be perfectly suitable for another topic after the content is deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that instead of just deleting the article altogether, let's boldly revise it to cover a historical relevant term and have a minor reference to the Warhammer stuff to acknowledge how in addition to be used by Mongol, Chinese, and Japanese emperors as one of their more hyperbolic titles, others have also used the title in works of fiction. As for the edito histories, there's no compelling reason to delete them unless if there is some kind of libelous or copyright violation stuff involved. Otherwise, we are encouraged per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT to go ahead and improve articles in question, which I would be willing to do here, but since it's on AfD, I thought I might as well get some other ideas on how best to do that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't a character so much as an object, and it's just not one about which someone has seen fit to comment. If Le Roi wants to write an article about an entirely different subject under this name, be my guest, but it doesn't have anything to do with this article or subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no independent reliable sources cover this subject at all (because when it comes down to it the Emperor is only a minor part of the game background) and thus it has no established notability. I must commend Roi in reaching a whole new level of surreality with the "how editors behave in the edit histories of deleted articles is tremendously useful when they request adminship" argument, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Section break: Beginning revised version that is no longer indended to focus on Warhammer
I have begun the new version and will continue a bit later. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has made significant improvements to the article since it was first listed in AFD and as such I don't feel that this AFD should apply any more as the original complaints have been addressed. As a side note my vote if it hadn't been for the revision still would have been keep because if Wikipedia is going to delete an article on a central figure in the Warhammer 40k universe it might as well delete all the articles on 40k. To say that this doesn't pass the notability test when there are 1000s of articles that are substantially less notable than this one is absurd. Also before anyone quotes WP:OTHERSTUFF to me, I am well aware of it and don't find it particularly persuasive. -- Gudeldar (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A google scholar search for this exact term does not appear to support the usage you have adduced, except in those few (4) neologist instances. Could you please provide more specific references (& good on you to provide page numbers) from reputable scholarly sources so we can judge whether this usage is generally accepted in the context of the reification of Asian kingship? For example, (source 2) to translate Genghis Khan as "Emperor of Mankind" is simply erroneous, indeed baffling. A google search of "Ghenghis Khan" with "Emperor of Mankind" (removing, lol, Warhammer of course) produces all of six Ghits. Source 4 (supporting the claim that the title is used in the context of Christianity) is an extraordinary extrapolation to all of Christian doctrine of a single passage (that you have linked to, viz. I recognise my Lord, the king of kings and the emperor of mankind) uttered in translation in the context of a solitary martyrological instance. Thus, as it stands and based on the referenced material provided, the opening phrase Emperor of Mankind is a title used by a number of Asian emperors and deities is simply false and the other uses are, at best, idiosyncratic. Wikipedia is here to reflect, not create. Thus, any JSTOR or other scholarly material that you can dig up to flesh out these (in my view) inadequately referenced assertions would be highly useful. I salute your desire to save articles, but the gussying up of an infrequent neologism and providing it with the semblance of academic credibility, when in fact it has none, is not the way to go about it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly well sourced now, although could use a rewrite to move a bit farther from the WH 40K article it was. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure why this has been added to Japan-related deletions... It would appear to me from what I have read of the arguments here (admittedly, not all of them), that there are two sides here: the first claims there is no real-life relevance to this boardgame character; the other one coming up with some far-fetched connections to supposed Asian kingship titles in order to design a vehicle that will carry this article along. I suggest you two sides stop bickering and pour yourselves some undiluted wine (an idiom I only just now pulled from my mothertounge, I hope you understand what I mean): This has nothing whatsoever to do with Asia. The argument here is, whether the character in question is important enough in the W4K universe to be notable, and further on, whether the W4K universe itself is notable enough to have articles regarding important figureheads in it. I have never played the game, nor do I have any real intention to do so in the future, but from what I gather from the arguments above, this guy is pretty important in the W4K universe. So, my suggestion would be for the keepers to stop trying to candy-wrap this into Asian sociology and present a case regarding the notability of W4K as such. And to the deleters, present a case that this guy is not notable in the W4K universe, or else that W4K itself can reasonably be ignored on a whole. Please leave Asian rulers out of this - the final article (if it stays) should be focused on W4K, with a did-you-know sidepoint regarding historic Emperors of Mankind. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: Now that the content about the fictional character has been prepended with content about an unrelated historical title, we have more options to discuss, such as whether the article should be kept as is, deleted altogether, reduced to either of the two topics or split into two articles. Sandstein 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Le Roi would like to make an article about an entirely unrelated subject that shares a name, he's free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to have some coverage in WP:V sources, though admittedly more work needs to be done. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a List of Warhammer 40000 characters 70.55.88.21 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep although perhaps to save the article other occurances of "Emperor of Mankind" that do not apply to the Warhammer world should be found and incorporated into the article. I'm sure the term has been used in places that aren't 40K and sources could be found for that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The central characters in major games are appropriate for separate breakout articles. The notability is of the game overall, and the discussion of the game is best handled by separate articles on the major figures. Its merely a question of length and style, not article notability. DGG (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what reliable sources are you going to use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If a topic is notable, then there is no need to delete an article on the topic. If it lacks reliable sources, all we need to do is to try to find them. -- Taku (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP If the decision to remove this article is made then by example each article on a fictional character in a fictional universe should also be removed under the same principle.Kagegod (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles on fictional characters that do not have secondary sources that demonstrate real-world notability should be deleted. --Phirazo 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) - this is a minor character who is only of questionable notability within warhammer. Outside of warhammer, no real world notability is established nor claimed. Furthermore the article has zero independent sources --T-rex 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect Redirect target would be to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)
or some future, unrelated article on emperors. The sources provided for the article are not independent of the game maker. the subject of the article is a fictional character heading a fictional faction in Warhammer 40K (just for some clarification). If the title "Emperor of Mankind" has been claimed by humans (middle kingdom, japan, ghengis khan, etc), that is irrelevant. We would NOT merge this article into an article such as Emperor of Japan on the basis that the japanese emperors used to claim divinity and sovereignty over all mankind. We would not fill this article with duplicated content from various articles on emperors who have claimed to be rulers of all mankind. this deletion debate covers only the subject and article at hand. the creation of an article about emperors is independent of this discussion. That would be like protesting the deletion of Ork (Warhammer 40,000) on the basis of other fictional Orc's. Either way, this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Comment I missed it my first run through, but this comment by Eusebeus explicitly lays out the case against treating this as a possible merger with an article about emperors IRL. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, thus failing WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If an article can be written on real-world Emperors of Mankind, and not the 40k one, then it can be written after this article is deleted. --Phirazo 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wold be much wiser to just boldly rewrite over this article as there's no reason for outright deletion here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per ChrisCunningham, Protonk and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional explanation: I also note that the "new" version by Le Grand Roi, that purported to be dealing nominally with the real-world title, was actually even worse than the original. Pure WP:COATRACK. Nominally about a real-world thing, but then in fact going on and on about the Warhammer trivia in its entirety. No way. Ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in non-trivial reliable secondary sources, fails WP:NOTE. No real-world notability. The rewritten version is just a pretty blatant piece of coatracking. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 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. Wizardman 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomats vol 1
- Diplomats vol 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Article about a mixtape which fails WP:MUSIC#Albums: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources", however, no sources are provided. Ros0709 (talk) 19:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability as a mixtape. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:39, 18 July 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 deleted under A7. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tonight The Prom
Does not appear to meet WP:BAND guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete; non-notable band. Ros0709 (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Utterly fails WP:BAND; I see no assertation of notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 19:58, 17 July 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 A7 Speedy. Tawker (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RELOADED (warez)
- RELOADED (warez) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just a random website. No indication of why or how this is notable. The only sentence in the entire article has {{fact}} stuck on it. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 Sceptre (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. Already tagged as such. No assertion of notability. Existence isn't notability. DarkAudit (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just an FYI but 5 minutes before this AFD was created it had way more content and looked like this. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. That looks worse though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really; it has information that could help anyone who wants to go looking for references. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It will be difficult to find any mention of this group in traditional media. However, some pirate news sites mention it; I know Slyck does, like at "Major Piracy Bust Against Top Providers. Also, here are some more references that claim RELOADED cracked StarForce (they are in French, which I can read): La protection Starforce 3 cassée and StarForce : le casseur cassé. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really; it has information that could help anyone who wants to go looking for references. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. That looks worse though. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:59, 17 July 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. Wizardman 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glastonbury Festival (R.E.M.)
- Glastonbury Festival (R.E.M.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Unreliable. Arb name. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic, arbitrary. Tan ǀ 39 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as indiscriminate. It's not as if the concert itself was in any way notable. I don't think it is in WP's interests to have articles of the infinite permutations of band plus venue. It will be never ending. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 18 July 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 --JForget 00:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comedy Central Presents: 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of All Time
- Comedy Central Presents: 100 Greatest Stand-Ups of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Copyright violation of the publishers' intellectual property. This is a subjective list, therefore a creative work, and so it's copyrighted. If this were a list of the top 100 comedians ranked by album sales, or some such objective criteria, then it wouldn't be a copyvio. Corvus cornixtalk 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because Tim Wilson didn't place. No seriously, delete because it's a US and UK-centric list, no reliable sources, creative work, blah blah blah. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as copyright infringement WP:CSD#G12. -Verdatum (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Copyvio. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:14, 17 July 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. This is a case where an appropriate article on this subject may be defendable in the future, but at this time is not supportable with our requirements for verifiability in independent sources. The subject is not patently non-notable, but this article's existence in mainspace is currently premature. I'll be happy to userfy it for any interested editor. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity and Democratic Governance
- Ethnicity and Democratic Governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an academic research project which, though it may be very worthy, has no third-party sources to prove notability in Wikipedia terms. There is also a problem with conflict of interest, and so a concern with promotion, as the article author is a member of the project. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think an funding vehicle for research is of significance. As the nominator says, there aren't isn't much independent coverage for this project. Institutes and projects only rise to notability if they perform groundbreaking work that get lots of outside attention. RayAYang (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I respectfully disagree. "Groundbreaking work" is not a condition for notability on Wikipedia. Take the Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies, for example, which the nominator himself successfully defended against deletion. What's the difference between the two? – SJL 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I was imprecise. Formally, my objection to the article is that the article does not meet the threshold for notability of organizations, defined in WP:ORG, which is significant (as opposed to incidental) coverage in reliable independent sources.
- I was making an offhand comment that projects, programs and other funding vehicles for academic research are unlikely to meet this standard if they do not perform groundbreaking work. I was wrong to use the noun "institute" -- it can mean very different things. In some cases, it means independent institutions of significant heft like the Institute for Advanced Study, in other cases, the institute is a department or a major center in its own right like the Courant Institute, in yet other cases the word institute refers to little more than a peculiar administrative division inside some department. It was in this third sense that I referred to institutes as funding vehicles. Best, RayAYang (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUncertain I am not sure how to evaluate this sort of inter-university research center. The two analogies given above do nt hold. IAS is an institution of its own, with a permanent campus, faculty, continuing existence, and true world-wide fame. Courant is also a separate body, though part of NYU, essentially notable as being one of the 3 or 4 top mathematics centers in the world. Even if regarded as an academic department, it's one of the exceptions that would qualify. In each case there are abundant references for the extremely high rank of the organisation. There are not such references here. There are merely a list of publication, and references from its own website and that of its sponsor. It is not a body with continuing existence--it is stated to be a particular 5-year grant. It has no physical building of its own--its more of a project than a research center. Not all the members of the project team are notable--6 hold Canada research chairs, which would certainly justify individual articles on them, and some have equivalent positions elsewhere, but about half of them are assistant professors or associate professors, whom we ordinarily do not consider notable. There productivity is not yet world-class, really: a symposium published as a book, a conference, a set of policy papers, a series of workshops, and some sponsored talks. (they also list a umber of books that, judging from their publication dates, were apparently written by members of the center before the project began). But their 5 year life span began in 2006, so perhaps they will become notable by the end of the project. I think such projects could possibly be notable, but it would take a good deal more than this to justify an article. DGG (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC) -- modified in view of the comments below, & on my talk page. DGG (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I have a few points of clarification before I respond:
- The project does not have a building of its own, but it does have a block of offices at Queen's University and a permanent staff. The Major Collaborative Research Initiative grant was to found an independant organization to facilitate collaborative international research; it's not just funding vehicle.
- Members of the project have in fact produced more than 100 publications through the collaboration that it has facilitated (the website is not up to date, and will be replaced later this year), but I have only included those publications that have been promoted as such. I have more to say about this below.
- I may be mistaken, but my experience is that Wikipedia does not use full professorship as a necessary condition for the notability of an academic. The six assistant professors on the project are members because their upcoming research is promising, and they likely don't meet the criteria for notability yet, but all of the associate professors certainly do. It also seems odd to me to say that the collaboration of five Canada Research Chairs on one project is unremarkable.
- The current grant is for five years, but is renewable for another seven years after that, and the Queen's members of the project hope to use it as a basis for a full research institute there in the future. I know that doesn't have much bearing on its current form, but I thought it was worth pointing out, since you mentioned the duration of the project as an issue.
- Having said all that, I do recognize that this type of project doesn't seem to fit well with Wikipedia's current notability standard for organizations, but I don't think that alone is sufficient justification for deletion. Maybe the standard is unfairly biased towards a particular type of activity? The fact is that the nature of this kind of organization is such that its many accomplishments will almost always manifest themselves in the activities of its members. None of that activity would have been possible without the organization, but it is rarely attributed directly to the project itself (with the regular exception of publication acknowledgments, or the rare exceptions of the 'product of EDG' publications that I've cited in the article), even when members of the project are interviewed by media outlets (which happens fairly regularly, given that so many of them a specialists in hot topics like multiculturalism). There are a lot of projects like this that are an integral part of producing high-level academic research, and I think that there is a good case for including them (and not just this one) in Wikipedia. Evidence of their notability may have to be less direct than in other cases, but I think that is reasonable. As I mentioned above, the person who nominated this article for deletion helped to save a similar one that he created himself by arguing that while the Institute does not have many third-party references to indicate its notability, its activities are sufficiently demonstrative of that fact. – SJL 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. Actually, all that is needed is articles about the project in professional magazines or journals, articles not based on the school's PR. Given what you describe, they may well be available. As you recognize. we really do like direct evidence. I went into the length I did because there are indeed many similar projects, and we have no really established criteria. It is very much easier showing the notability of such a project once it is finished and all the work is published and commented on, and citations to it are available. This article was at least introduced mid-way in the project, not at the very start as most such articles are (in which case they almsot always get deleted), so perhaps you wlll be able to find something. O'm sympathetic here, but the article needs further support. DGG (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My thoughts are similar to DGG's as expressed above. I'm familiar with MCRI projects, and doubt that any really warrant a Wikipedia article. However worthy, they are temporary and limited. The publications claimed for them are almost always inflated collations of research that would have been done anyway; that's certainly the case here, with the notion that since its inception the project has already generated 100 publications. One wouldn't expect to see significant publications directly generated by the project until near the end of its term, if not indeed after it has formally terminated. Should the project indeed lead to a full and permanent research institute, then I would be much more sympathetic to the notion that it was sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. (This is indeed the main difference from, say, the Peter Wall Institute, which is permanent and endowed.) It would be very surprising if any such project merited an article at this stage in its life, and I see no demonstration in the article itself that this particular project is exceptional in this way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, the fact that you describe the research produced by MCRI projects as "inflated collations of research that would have been done anyway" suggests that you have no direct experience with them. I'm not going to labour this point, but I really have no idea where you are coming from. Together, the basic grant and the various contributions from participating institutions amount to $4-5 million, and that funding is contingent on collaborative research and publications, among other conditions. This has a significant impact on the activities of MCRI team members and their students, and a great deal 'gets done' that otherwise wouldn't.
- I didn't say that you are lying. I said that your characterization of MCRI projects is inaccurate, and explained why. If you do have direct experience with a MCRI (as a member, workshop participant, etc.), though, I'd like to know which one matches your description. – SJL 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the longevity of MCRI projects, it is true that many disband after their term ends, but that is not always the case. The Globalization & Autonomy project, for example, served as the foundation for the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. Regardless, though, I don't understand why longevity would be relevant to notability in the first place. The fact that one organization is "permanent and endowed" may make it more notable than another that is not, but this does not entail that the latter lacks notability. Persistence is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. – SJL 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I'm aware that sometimes MCRIs are turned into permanent institutions. (For what it's worth, I happen to be good friends with one of the former directors of the McMaster project.) If that were to happen in this case, as I say, then things would change. I think it's fairly clear why a permanent center is likely to be more notable than a limited-term project. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the longevity of MCRI projects, it is true that many disband after their term ends, but that is not always the case. The Globalization & Autonomy project, for example, served as the foundation for the Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition. Regardless, though, I don't understand why longevity would be relevant to notability in the first place. The fact that one organization is "permanent and endowed" may make it more notable than another that is not, but this does not entail that the latter lacks notability. Persistence is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. – SJL 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be the case that a permanent centre is more notable than a limited-term project, but the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia is notability, not relative notability. My argument is that some subjects that do not meet all of the current notability criteria can still be reasonably described as notable in a way that is consistent with the principle underlying that standard. – SJL 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with DGG's arguments about independent references, and am not convinced by what's there - one from the SSHRC, one from EDG itself, neither independent, and just one from a local newspaper - the link doesn't work, but even if it did I don't think it would amount to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" required by the notability standard. I hear the defence's plea that the notability criteria may be biased against their kind of activity, but everyone wants to get into WP, we do have to have some kind of admission standard, and WP:N has been worked out over the years. JohnCD (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry that you are unable to access the article, but the link does work. There is no freely available version, so that link is to the permanent URL in the ProQuest archive (as requested, I have provided a description of the article's contents on the Ethnicity and Democratic Governance talk page).
- Also, while I see where you are coming from when you say that the notability standard is necessary and is not arbitrary, I don't think that this is sufficient reason not to consider that the standard may prevent an accurate assessment of notability in cases like this. – SJL 18:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this article has been improved, but the AfD talk may have to be held open to see what else can be done to fix this to be kept. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 24 July 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 Merge, with Amazon.com#Controversies and redirect to False advertising. The main point of contention of this discussion was if the article could have a neutral point off view when calling the examples it discusses "tricks". This is especially problematic since the majority of the article deals with a single retailer, which prompted Neon white's description of this article as as a coatrack for criticism of Amazon. Furthermore, all the sources discuss particular examples of controversial sales tactics but do not discuss "online sales tricks" as a general subject. In light of this focus on a single retailer and lack of sources discussing the subject in general, I think a merge is the best option. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Online sales tricks
- Online sales tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be a neologism with an arbitrary set of examples. ZimZalaBim talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a neologism since these are common words with a straightforward meaning. And, in any case, if there's a problem with the title, we just move/merge the article to a better title - neologism is never a reason to delete, only to rewrite. As for the examples, I have extended the article somewhat and it is open to other editors to flesh it out further per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, they are common words with a straighforward meaning. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. Unless reliable sources consider this a unique term of art, it remains simply an arbitrary concept with arbitrary examples. (IE, we don't have an article on "barnyard animals" or "finding a parking spot" or other random collections of concepts). --ZimZalaBim talk 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Parking guidance and information for an article about finding a parking spot. Barnyard animals are covered by the List of domesticated animals. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed the point there by some way. The point is that not all phrases are notable. It has to demonstrate it by sourcing. --neon white talk 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. --ZimZalaBim talk 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed the point there by some way. The point is that not all phrases are notable. It has to demonstrate it by sourcing. --neon white talk 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Parking guidance and information for an article about finding a parking spot. Barnyard animals are covered by the List of domesticated animals. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrase book or glossary and so the article title is not significant. The topic of the article is underhand sales techniques used in online selling. The notability of this topic has been established by the sources which explicitly and specfically discuss this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, some interesting coverage in WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources. Could use some expansion, but has the potential to become an interesting and informative quality article. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Coatrack which i doubt can be made to comply with WP:NPOV, this includes the title and lead. Implying that these techniques are 'tricks' is not a neutral pov. There is also no assertion that the term is notable even if terms such as 'Best-Seller Blast' can be sourced. --neon white talk 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coatrack? What are the coats? Seems to me that all the naysayers have is a gut feel that the article is not encyclopedic and so are just fishing around for some excuse to delete it. As soon as one bad argument is rebutted, they immediately switch to another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:COATRACK for more info, the article claims to be about 'online sales tricks' (a highly POV term in itself) but the majority of the article seems to be an attack on amazon.com based on an editorial piece. This article reads and feels like it was created to promote the highly non-neutral view that that amazon is dishonest rather than adding it the amazon.com article where it would be far more neutral. On top of that there isn't enough to suggest the subject is notable. Writings on a particular example might make those notable but to associate them together under one banner that hasn't been covered in any sources is original research. --neon white talk 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination states that the article has an "arbitrary set of examples". Now you say that it is an attack upon Amazon. The argument for deletion is evidently incoherent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not write the nomination, that post has nothing to do with me. User:ZimZalaBim nominated the article. --neon white talk 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination states that the article has an "arbitrary set of examples". Now you say that it is an attack upon Amazon. The argument for deletion is evidently incoherent. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen of Bollywood. One of the paragraphs is about promotions which are only a lure, and another one is possibly about misleading advertising. The term is clearly meant to be pejorative, and using the 'Blast' as an example of a trick may be biased, as it implies it is done by sleight of hand whereas it appears to be just an example of Push e-mail. Furthermore, is there such a term as 'Online sales trick', and if so, do we have sufficient reliable sources which clearly set out what this is by giving firm examples? Or was it coined by a journalist or author trying to make good headline? We have an article on Confidence trick and phishing, maybe we should first also try to have articles on sales tricks, sales ploys, sales tactics - second thoughts, no: we already have these concepts with promotions and misleading ads. This article appears to be a synthesis of material where someone has mentioned sales trick and online retailer in the same breath, and would be an invitation for grievances of all people who feel they have been 'had' online. I don't find it the least bit interesting or useful (especially as WP is not a "how to" or "how not to" guide), and I cannot for the life of me see how this is encyclopaedic. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with most of that, what it boils down to is that if these techniques have been deemed illegal than we can say they are illegal but we shouldn't be making moral judgements on them. I don't believe the article can ever be neutral with the current title. In my opinion some of the info could go in an article about online sales tactics, marketing etc. --neon white talk 15:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are not required to be of interest or useful to you. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sure you wouldn't have created it if you didn't think it was interesting, but then people create articles for all sorts of reasons, and not all of them fall within the scope of what WP is - this one being a case in point. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The matter seemed notable rather than interesting. You, yourself are currently working upon an article about a particular noodle shop. I applaud your effort but fail to see why one topic is more or less worthy of inclusion here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the article references well-known sources, perhaps the content could be moved to a more appropriate article pertaining to questionable business practices. (This is my first AfD discussion, so I guess I qualify as a newbie here.) Gmazeroff (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a sensible suggestion. The convention here is to summarise your recommendation in bold like this: Merge. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The amazon.com example is not a 'sales trick' at all, it's just a bug, if you like, in the way amazon.com counts it's sales, there is no deception at the point of sale and as far as i know amazon.com has never made any claims to the contrary. Herein lays the neutrality problem with having such an article. --neon white talk 15:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The content has little value, as it mostly describes "tricks" ("unethical or deceptive practices" would sound a bit more like an encyclopedia) that are not specific to online shopping. Those that are can be written into online shopping anyway. GregorB (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Amazon.com#Controversies or somewhere else in that article, as it seems to be about the unreliability of Amazon's rankings rather than anything else. Meanwhile have stub-sorted it, to clear it out of Category:Stubs. PamD (talk) 22:39, 18 July 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 (all delete votes) --JForget 00:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Peter J. Deperro
- Peter J. Deperro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. Non-notable subject. No sources at all. Little assertions of notability. Article is written by User:Peter.deperro, so obvious conflict of interest is present. "Peter J. Deperro" gets nine google hits (Most of which are related Wikipedia links) and "Peter Deperro" gets fourteen. Also of note: This article was tagged for notability and being an autobiography, and prodded for being a "nonnotable person; fluff piece." In addition to removing the prod, User:Peter.deperro made a "minor change" that removed the maintenance tags with no explanation why. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources, virtually no assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the army count as a reliable source? [9] I realize it's word for word from there, but it's USGov, so should be acceptable. I leave it to people smarter than I am to figure it out :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the one who prodded the article and reading over it currently, there remains to be seen any assertations of notability. No offense to the author, but, flatly, if you have no claim to fame other than surviving or being decorated in a war, then you chances of having a Wikipedia article are about 0% and holding. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Note that user Peter.deperro has changed his username to Guardian3a. --Crusio (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no references. Nobonobo (talk) 02:41, 21 July 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 --JForget 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Thirst
- The Thirst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Article only has one source meaning poor reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single criteria of WP:MUSIC is matched. IRK!Leave me a note or two 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSICKeep more than enough to pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep. A quick Google search (which should always be a minimum effort before nominating for deletion) brings back all these: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. How much coverage do you want?--Michig (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now worked these into the article, and also added sourced mentions of their appearance at the SXSW festival and their live session on BBC 6 Music. There's no way this should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw per research by Michig. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:34, 21 July 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 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briganté
- Briganté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Only the BBC inline citation works properly. Not reliable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it reads like a press release and offers nothing towards meeting the notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references from Bedford Today (a reliable source since it is the web site of the Times & Citizen newspaper) work properly confirm the performance in Italy (which might pass the "international tour" part of [{WP:MUSIC]]). The # BBC Three Counties Radio live session in October 2007 also contributes to notability. Even though the band does not have two albums out, it is notable because it is only necessary for a band to pass any provision of [{WP:MUSIC]], not all of them. --Eastmain (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep discussion in multiple WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. On a sidenote, there is a bit of WP:OR that needs to be pruned. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes notability criteria via coverage.--Michig (talk) 18:07, 18 July 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. RFerreira (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Blood
- The Blood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Only sources are self-published. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A bit puzzled by this nomination. The band had a number 5 album on the indie chart in 1983, and 2 indie single hits. An independent reference from a published book is included to back this up. The article needs work, but I see no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, agree with Michig (talk · contribs). What the article needs is massive WP:OR pruning and a slew of secondary sources added, but not deletion. Cirt (talk) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThis article needs more sources, not deletion. Willvista (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete the article appears to be subject to an enormous amount of conflict of interest editing, and consequently becomes laden with the band and fans' soapboxing about the band's belief and philisophy. However, my deepest concern is the lack of reliable sources with which to verfiy and validate the material in the article thus failing one of the fundamental pillars of WP. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: It's a notable band, and not all the references are self-published. The article should be improved, not deleted.Spylab (talk) 01:22, 19 July 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. RFerreira (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Snapdragons
- The Snapdragons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. No inline cites means zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lack of sourcing is not a deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Corvus Cornix. Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. Undisputably, the band was very much notable in their time, being championed by indie music guru John Peel. This is referenced in the article—they performed a live set for his show. I would also say that their 'discography' is much more impressive than many bands and is easily verifiable, for example at music database Discogs, [21]. Discogs also shows that two of their tracks were considered to be outstanding enough to be included on indie music 'Best Of' albums. Despite the intervening years, their music continues to be discussed on forum and blog sites and their records traded daily on eBay (three items offered today on eBay.co.uk). Brittle heaven (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Any sources showing that they were notable "in their time" would solve the nominator's only valid issue, since Notability is not temporary. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While "other stuff exists" is not considered a good reason to contest a proposed deletion, thousands of band-related articles do exist, many of which are not nearly as well written as this one. The entry contains a wealth of verifiable detail which can be corroborated on-line or through music reference books. Inline citations may be provided at some point in time, but insistence that the article cannot now exist without such citations creates an extremely high standard which would eliminate the great majority of all Wikipedia entries.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Corvus Cornix. Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. Undisputably, the band was very much notable in their time, being championed by indie music guru John Peel. This is referenced in the article—they performed a live set for his show. I would also say that their 'discography' is much more impressive than many bands and is easily verifiable, for example at music database Discogs, [21]. Discogs also shows that two of their tracks were considered to be outstanding enough to be included on indie music 'Best Of' albums. Despite the intervening years, their music continues to be discussed on forum and blog sites and their records traded daily on eBay (three items offered today on eBay.co.uk). Brittle heaven (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Lack of sourcing is not a deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable band that received significant national airplay, toured extensively and released two albums. If the only issue here is lack of inline references, there are tags that could be added specifically for that reason, rather than nominating for deletion.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 18 July 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 --JForget 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Fair Lady (2009 film)
- My Fair Lady (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wouldn't it be loverly? Unfortunately, there's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL going on here. From the research I did, it appears Keira Knightley is considering this project -- she has not signed up for it, nor has not received the green light. I'd love to discuss this further, but I'm getting married in the morning... Ecoleetage (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could have deleted all night, per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur to delete — and also to move My Fair Lady (1964 film) back to its previous title. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just moved the article back to its original title, Kevin. With a little bit of luck, it should stay put (with a little bit, with a little bit...) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't talk of stars Burning above; If it's notable, Show me! -Verdatum (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I checked online and it seems legitimate: [22] and [23]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up I've checked other sources that had Keira considering the role - no production has begun, nor has there been reports of other cast members being signed. There isn't even a script ready -- the two articles you cited spoke of Emma Thompson being signed to write something -- which would need the studio OK before anything goes before the camera. It is still waaaay too early for an article here. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder then given that it seems somewhat likely, if we should merge and redirect to My Fair Lady and that way when/if more information comes out the redirect could easily be reversed and editors won't have to start all over? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a brief citation of this planned project in the article for the 1964 film. And I don't know about "somewhat likely," since there isn't even a script, just an idea. It doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. It is still too early to say "I think she's got it!" Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merge and redirect to here for the time being? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a brief citation of this planned project in the article for the 1964 film. And I don't know about "somewhat likely," since there isn't even a script, just an idea. It doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. It is still too early to say "I think she's got it!" Ecoleetage (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (if there is anything to merge) & Redirect to My Fair Lady. According to one of the sources posted by Le Grand Roi, they've only just got a screenwriter, so the article falls some way short of WP:NFF. No guarantee the film will ever be made. PC78 (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Damn, damn, damn... I've grown accustomed to this article. WP:CRYSTAL. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not per WP:CRYSTAL, since there is verifiable coverage about this possible film, but per the notability guidelines for future films because filming has not begun and is not guaranteed to. Only recreate if filming does begin. Sorry, I know no catchy line from this fictional work to conclude my !vote. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I would say delete for this sort of thing, but as My Fair Lady already mentions this film, so I don't think a redirect is unwarranted. PC78 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. As we can see, only the casting is sort-of sorted so far. The article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentries of our gentry find that we must delete this entry... for failing WP:CRYSTAL. HiDrNick! 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A treat! So sweet! Completely we Delete. Mandsford (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete its blooming arse. JuJube (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Glad to see us all 'aving so much fun 'ere. Wouldn't it be loverly" to have this article, but Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins, just you wait! Ohconfucius (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but save me a ticket for opening day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 18 July 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. RFerreira (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tits of Death
- Tits of Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Label is redlinked. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't they be a pair instead of a quintet? No, seriously, Weak delete for now. The sources are borderline, but I don't think they quite cut it yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Of marginal notability, but the references put them over the line. Gotta love that band name, though. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. I would say they juuuuuuuuust barely meet WP:MUSIC criteria #1. They're really pretty borderline, but I've got a funny feeling about them...um...that they'll garner more notability, I mean. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, discussion in multiple WP:V/WP:RS secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 'Non Notable' is a rather unspecific argument. If something is redlinked it just means there isn't an article about it on Wikipedia and nothing else. Sufficient coverage for WP to have an article.--Michig (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and there's more coverage out there: [24], [25], [26].--Michig (talk) 17:47, 18 July 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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxfam Glamour Models
- The Oxfam Glamour Models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per sources found and per withdrawal of nominator. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources at http://www.bbc.co.uk/tees/content/articles/2006/03/15/oxfam_glamour_feature.shtml. Lead singer was on the cover of "NME" and "Artrocker", I dont' have access to those, but surely if he graced their covers, there were articles? Other reliable source at [27]. Corvus cornixtalk 18:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the research done by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) - that info and sourcing really needs to be added to the article though. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely sufficiently notable for inclusion.--Michig (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - Per the research by Corvus cornix. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:56, 18 July 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 merge. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contempo (band)
- Contempo (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable Hard-Fi related cruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Richard Archer. Not a lot to merge, but might be worth a mention there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Archer. This band is not very notable. Artene50 (talk) 09:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above and redirect to Richard Archer. Doesn't seem to be enough about Contempo to justify a separate article.--Michig (talk) 17:55, 18 July 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.
In general, the reasons given in the closure of this AfD apply mutatis mutandis. Moreover, this article has additional policy problems which the "keep" opinions fail to adequately address: most content is unverifiable, sourced either to "the games and their manuals" in general or to a small number of unreliable sources. Also, its scope and subject brings it into conflict with WP:NOTGUIDE, a policy.
To the extent that a very concise summary of this content (about one paragraph) is required to adequately explain the game within the scope of an encyclopedia, it may be restored for selective merging to Pokémon or another article – as soon as reliable, specific sources are provided. Sandstein 17:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon types
- Pokémon types (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Still appears to be a "detailed" wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page. Salavat (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up - this is one of the few Pokémon game mechanics that I believe deserves its own individual article. This article does need some clean-up, as well as the removal of all original research, but I believe it exerts enough real-world notability to stay. Artichoker[talk] 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In-universe game guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An in-depth understanding of the elemental rock-paper-scissors is pretty superfluous; all that needs to be said is that there is such a system. Nifboy (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at worst merge- I would think there'd be enough real world information to justify the article (although I can't really do the research myself at this time). That said, if real world information limited in its availability, and cleanup removes too much for it to be a viable article on its own, then merging the relevant information with either the main pokemon article or Pokémon game mechanics would make more sense. At any rate, I think its an encyclopedic topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort — Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, none of the articles referenced establish any out–of–universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree fully with Artichoker's comment below. I change to Merge to Pokémon game mechanics and still transwiki if needed. MuZemike (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if the final consensus is to delete, then this article should be merged to Pokémon game mechanics and made into a redirect. Artichoker[talk] 17:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fans may not need this article. But the rest of us do, in order to make sense of the material. We write for the general reader, and this is not excessive detail. For example, a true article in a fan wiki should explain every instance of every type of conflict,and this just gives representative ones to explain the concepts. DGG (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Condense and merge into Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon types. We don't need a comprehensive table of type interactions, but it's appropriate to discuss the concept of types and how they affect each other in the context of explaining the gameplay. Pagrashtak 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the table should stay. Comprehensiveness is a good thing in this case, and the table clearly shows the effectiveness of each type to one another. Ideally, if this were merged, it would become a paragraph giving a general overview of the types and then the table which explains everything else. Artichoker[talk] 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me why a reader who will not play the games is interested in knowing the results of every possible attack combination. That table would look right at home in a game guide. Pagrashtak 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never played the game series, but I edit the articles and find them quite interesting to read. Until I saw this table, I never realized there were so many Pokémon types. They must have added about twelve of those later in the series. I'm only familiar with the first 151 Pokémon. Useight (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me why a reader who will not play the games is interested in knowing the results of every possible attack combination. That table would look right at home in a game guide. Pagrashtak 19:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the table should stay. Comprehensiveness is a good thing in this case, and the table clearly shows the effectiveness of each type to one another. Ideally, if this were merged, it would become a paragraph giving a general overview of the types and then the table which explains everything else. Artichoker[talk] 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I agree with the cogent rationale provided above by DGG (talk · contribs). Not to mention that there are some good sources already provided in the article. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely disagree as far as the sources are concerned. None of the sources are verifiable. The serebii.net and TRsRockin.com sites are basically Pokemon fansites. The review from GameFAQs seems like it's from a user and not from a staff member or any other verifiable journalist. (It has already been determined here that references to GameFAQs should only be used for release data.) MuZemike (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not an appropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE. Asserts no notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a necessary and helpful support article for the other Pokémon articles. It's no good having explain all this stuff over and over again in all the other Pokémon articles. Let's just keep this article so the others can link to it. Original research can be fixed. The article shouldn't be deleted because of OR that you can just clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunDragon34 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful for those of us that don't speak Pokemon and acts as a well to not replicate information across many articles. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address the nominator's concerns. The nominator believes this information is not suitable for Wikipedia, and thus would not need to be replicated across articles in the first place. In any event, wouldn't Pokémon game mechanics serve as such a "well"? Pagrashtak 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article must be merged, then yes, Pokémon game mechanics usually serves as the "well" for most merged information about Pokémon. Artichoker[talk] 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address the nominator's concerns. The nominator believes this information is not suitable for Wikipedia, and thus would not need to be replicated across articles in the first place. In any event, wouldn't Pokémon game mechanics serve as such a "well"? Pagrashtak 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A game guide, written from an in-universe perspective, based in many parts on original research. Edison (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This game guide/continuity guide can be consigned to history. The fact that some people find them interesting is nice, but there are other projects for this sort of thing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pokemon types are one of the franchise's core concepts, almost as important as Pokemon battles themselves, as it determines what can and can't happen in a battle. Condensing it into a single paragraph on the Pokemon game mechanics page won't do much good, considering how diverse types are. This is a complicated concept that deserves its own article. Some other concepts are simpler and can be condensed, but not this one. Condensing it can potentially confuse the general reader, as they may not know enough about types to understand the properties of Ice or Normal type Pokemon, to name a few. (Iuio (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If users want more in-depth information on how Pokemon game mechanics work, that is what Wikia, StrategyWiki, Bulbapedia, etc. are for. Wikipedia is not a game guide; this is made clear in WP:NOTGUIDE. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be rude Le Grand Roi but you quote that Five Pillars thing in every AFD related to cruft, in the exact same format. I feel that you may be trying to increase the amounts of keeps on the page? Salavat (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Grand Roi: as found in the essay WP:JNN, with which I think you are familiar, stating keep due to notability is not helpful if you do not also explain why it is notable. As it stands, your keep statement does nothing to help me gauge if I need to reconsider my stance. Pagrashtak 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, IMO the article could be summed up:
Pokemon types are special attributes that all pokemon have and can prove to be a strength or weakness when in battle with another pokemon. These types also apply to the various moves which pokemon have, eg pickachu might have an electric type move. In the anime series the strength and weaknesses are also evident, however not always do the follow "rules", these rules do differ from game to anime, but are mostly similar. To create a balance each move has its weaknesses and strengths, with all of this creating a balanced gameplay within the games.
Although maybe something a bit more thought out in regards to wording, this sorta thing doesnt need to go into depth. Salavat (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, IMO the article could be summed up:
- Le Grand Roi: as found in the essay WP:JNN, with which I think you are familiar, stating keep due to notability is not helpful if you do not also explain why it is notable. As it stands, your keep statement does nothing to help me gauge if I need to reconsider my stance. Pagrashtak 05:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, warrants an article as an important aspect of a highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not notable because it is lacking reliable third-party sources with significant coverage of these game items. Also violates WP:VGSCOPE that presumes we don't need a list of all the items in a game series, which still comes back to notability. Randomran (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why delete? This page is full of facts, play the games yourselves and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.7.144.59 (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As found in the essay WP:JNN, stating delete due to non-notability is not helpful. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a reason to keep. The facts must be backed up with verifiable, third-party sources, which there are none. MuZemike (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason to delete due to the existence of verifiable reliable sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Grand Roi, I don't think it's fair for you to point editors to that essay when your own keep statement was contrary to the very same section. Pagrashtak 20:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did state why this is non-notable: the lack of sources. You're the one who stated "this is notable" without any sources to back it up. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon has sources all over the place. If not, we wouldn't be on a third AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because the Pokémon Wikiproject has been struggling with sourcing issues for years now. If it's obvious to you how these articles could be sourced, perhaps you could let us in on it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I keep thinking of the whole "see what happens when Snoop Dog gets a hold of the discussion". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And this addresses my question how? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I keep thinking of the whole "see what happens when Snoop Dog gets a hold of the discussion". --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because the Pokémon Wikiproject has been struggling with sourcing issues for years now. If it's obvious to you how these articles could be sourced, perhaps you could let us in on it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obvious. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it. WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Randomran (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon has sources all over the place. If not, we wouldn't be on a third AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did state why this is non-notable: the lack of sources. You're the one who stated "this is notable" without any sources to back it up. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, which is what a considerable amount of information in this article is. While this could (and probably was, in the last few AfD's) be considered purely an editorial issue, I don't think it can be in this case. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Approximately 80% of the article content is information on how to better play the handheld or card game. No reliable, published sources independent from the game manufacturer are cited, meaning this article does not meet WP:GNG. Game manuals don't count. Self published websites don't count. Pokemon wikis don't count. Also (as a purely editorial manner), some OR has cropped up in the current version, I'll see if I can't get rid of it). Protonk (talk) 05:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to a more generic article on pokemon, specifically expanding Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon types; there is no reason that a simple list with a one sentence qualifier for each type could be used to explain a general classification of the types. However, the weak vs strong table and the like should definitely be nixed. Redirects for things like Grass-type Pokemon (a reasonably valid search term) can be pointed to the merge target. --MASEM 15:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Protonk's well-reasoned, solid argument. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you seem to be very fond of pointing to that essay, even though you haven't read it yourself, apparently. From the WP:VAGUEWAVE section: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." How do you expect others to follow the advice of that essay if you do not do so yourself? You seem to be very keen on replying to delete statements, yet you offer no explanation for this. Pagrashtak 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense tells me that Pokemon is notable, editors and readers are interested in it, information on it can be verified by any reasonable standard. I see no satisfactory weekend why this has to go to a third AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you seem to be very fond of pointing to that essay, even though you haven't read it yourself, apparently. From the WP:VAGUEWAVE section: "Naturally, citing this essay just by one of its many shortcuts (e.g. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT), without further explanation, is similarly ill advised, for the reasons explained above." How do you expect others to follow the advice of that essay if you do not do so yourself? You seem to be very keen on replying to delete statements, yet you offer no explanation for this. Pagrashtak 19:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:50, 22 July 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 to All the Right Reasons --JForget 00:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Follow You Home
- Follow You Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Prose is very informal, unenyclopaedic. Lacks sourcing and is a non-single. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. IRK!Leave me a note or two 16:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to All the Right Reasons. Corvus cornixtalk 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-encyclopedic, unnotable, etc. Please note: I am original author. Andre666 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:43, 18 July 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. Wizardman 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next Contestant
- Next Contestant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Never released as single therefore never charted. Insignificant media coverage. No references or inline cites means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-encyclopedic, unnotable, etc. Please note: I am original author. Andre666 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:42, 18 July 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) 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psychophysical Paradox
- Psychophysical Paradox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently little-used term: original research? Of the 9 Google hits [28], four are from Wikipedia itself, and three appear to use the phrase to mean something other than the subject of the article. In addition, at least one of the references given seems to be related to something else entirely, with the only similarity being the use of the word "psychophysical", another is an ArXiv preprint, and a third is behind a paywall, and thus not easily reviewed. The remaining reference (Klein) does appear to be about the general topic of psychophysics and mind-body duality, but does not use the word "psychophysical" anywhere. The Anome (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There seems to be a few articles mentioning this phenomenon. So maybe just a couple of references should be made in this article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, this is THE highest exception. the Psychophysical Paradox is of such an overwhelmingly fundamental, historical, scientific, philosophic, even theologic significance and importance and value, and since it pertains to the VERY BASICS of our understanding (or lack, thereof) of ourselves and the "World" - that I was amazed that the article did not exist at all, for which reason I created it! --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please help me with placing a request for more references, such as - "This References and Citations section is only a stub (or is incomplete etc) You can help by expanding it". I prefer this - to the Military-like message of "This article has failed in providing References and Citations, and shall, thus, be Court-Marshalled and Executed by a Firing-Squad". in other words, I am looking for a template that requests expansion, rather than one that points to its abscence. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inadequate, and an essay. This is one of the basic question of epistemology and covered elsewhere. Whether this particular term is standard enough to be used I do not know, but if so, we can do much better than this, actually basing an article on sources in a verifiable manner. DGG (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You rest my case! First, your false claim that "This is one of the basic question of epistemology and" - describes beatifully the fundamental importance and significance of the unresolved problem, but it is false since the subject encompasses much more than epistemology. Second, quoting your "in a verifiable manner" - demonstrates beatifully your complete miscomprehension of the problem. Who are "you"? What is "you"? What makes "you" "capable" of "Verifiable"? What is "Verifiable"? Can "you" "prove" that anything is "Verifiable"? What is the "relation" of the "Verifiable" of "you" - to the "real-world"? Who is this clown entity? I suggest that he (she) be "Deleted" from this discussion ! --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The two articles linked in the "further reading" section do not mention "Psychophysical Paradox" as a term. Mind-body dichotomy is already covered. And it just doesn't seem too terribly paradoxical. We have lots of sciences about concepts we do not actually understand and cannot point to, so I doubt this would be a promulgated term. Concepts like this are attributable to specific inherently notable authors. No effort was made to do so here, further suggesting it's not a notable concept. -Verdatum (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are unfamiliar with the term, it does not necessarily imply that it is wrong, or that it does not exist, or that there is a better term. It may actually imply that you are a complete ignorant about this subject. I claim that I know better. This "trigger-happy" approach to article deletion is questionable, in the sense that "Donald Duck" can vote to delete an article by Albert Einstein. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After I have received some useful explanations about Stub-Categories, courtesy of Marcel Douwe Dekker, I suggest that you organize the categories in a manner that seems appropriate to you. The Contents of the Article is of far greater importance than its categorization. So, please Categorize as seems appropriate, and let's finish with this Deletion stuff. Thanks,--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A term that does not seem to be common in the literature, and, one that could easily be confused with Psychophysics which psychologists have been studying since the 1870s. The article reads like an essay. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It escapes me why you have decided that it could easily be confused with Psychophysics which psychologists have been studying since the 1870s. The confusion is yours! These terms are inherently related. One, is from the point of view of Philosophy, while the other is from the point of view of Physics. Hence, the term - "Psych-o-Physical"! They refer to the same multidisciplinary problem! That goes to solidify my case. On the other hand - I would be happy to get some advice and tips about the diffrences between an Article, and an Essay - so that I know what to avoid. Thanks. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Since you have mentioned the article - Psychophysics, I wanted to add it to the "See also" section of my article. Unfortunately, I have discovered (as expected) that the author(s) of that article had addressed the issue from the viewpoint of Psychology only! Obviously, confined to their discipline, they have failed to realize the much more vast, broader, wider and comprehensive nature of this subject, which encompassing, or is implicated in, a multitude of Scientific Disciplines, particularly (but not limited to) Physics. Isn't it obvious that Psychophysics, or Psych-o-Physics - has something to do with Physics? That article needs some urgent corrections, before it can assumes its full, broad spectrum and perspective. --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 04:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't forget those movies where there's a mad scientist doing "psycho-physics"Edison (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't seen any of those, but I understanf the joke :~) --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like important article to me. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Help in Choosing the Best, of The 63,800 "Verifiable" Reference Books and Papers on the Psychophysical Paradox (or Problem or Debate)
- For Books, please use this Google Book-Search [29] for the 1610 books, which qualify as "Verifiable" References to this article.
- I would appreciate your help in choosing the most valuable, notable or prominent of these books to be used as references to my article.
- Note: The above search includes books only! If you want to consider including Journal-Papers, as references or citations candidates, , please use this Google-Scholar-Search [30] for the total of 63,800 books and papers, which qualify as "Verifiable" References to this article.
- Please note also, that this debate has drained my cognitive and attention reserves. Your empathy and help in contribution of complete Templates, which I can then as simply as possible "paste" or embed in the article - is highly appreciated.
- It would also help me in learning how to be a better article Contributor.
- Please use this book as a start.
- Please help in finding quality references pertaining to Multiple Scientific and other Disciplines, such as Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Anatomy, Neurology, Mathematics, Theology, Paradoxes, Medicine, etc., which serve to demonstrate the vastness and enormity of the scope of this subject.
- Please paste your contributions in my Talk-Page.
- Please do not remove the lines above and below, which separate this section.
Thanks,
--Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- When one searches google books with quotes around "psychophysical paradox" one comes up with three books. http://books.google.com/books?um=1&lr=&q=%22psychophysical+paradox%22&btnG=Search+Books One of those is a book about the nervous system, and is likely using psychophysics the way psychologists do (though this cannot be verified with google books). This shows, once more, the non notability of this term. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly the opposite! Please see the description above: "Please help in finding quality references pertaining to Multiple Scientific and other Disciplines, such as Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Anatomy, Neurology, Mathematics, Theology, Paradoxes, Medicine, etc., which serve to demonstrate the vastness and enormity of the scope of this subject". Have you understood anything at all, regarding what this article is about? --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and, here are the google scholar results http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Psychophysical+paradox%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 2 articles, one of which is about neuroscience, so again I am pretty sure that is the same way psychologists use the term psychophysics. This is a non notable term, plain and simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neuroscience? Excellent, Bring this reference on! Would there be "You" without Neurons in your brain? as regards Psychology, what, the hell, does this have to do with it? Perhaps you meant Psychiatry? See my previous comment above. Again, have you understood anything at all, regarding what this article is about? --Shimon Yanowitz (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Psychology studies psychophysics. Psychology also studies neurons. The term 'psychphysical paradox' is not notable. It shows up in two articles and three books (on google anyway).Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge with Mind-body dichotomy. The article does not add much to the merger target that is referenced. The article title does not appear to be widely used to describe its subject. Edison (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pseudo-science. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing about this article seems to make any sense. Lack of verifiability. Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No need for a redirect. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:54, 22 July 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. BJTalk 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bilkent IEEE Student Branch
- Bilkent IEEE Student Branch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am under the impression that this article is not Notable as per wikipedia guidelines. Smcbuet (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable student chapter. While IEEE is definitely one of the best organizations of its kind, individual student chapters are not notable. --Ragib (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, and no sources provided except for the group's own website(s). Without external documentation, it shouldn't merit an article. Postdlf (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I share nom's impression. SUbject fails WP:ORG, big time. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:17, 18 July 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. BJTalk 23:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
VoicePulse
- VoicePulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable company per WP:CORP; article has existed for a very long time without improvement. It was kept at AfD before purely on the basis of google hits, despite it being an advertisement. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedily as it fails WP:CORP, no assertion of notability. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a notable company whose service has gotten good reviews in reliable sources such as PC Magazine, eWeek and ComputerShopper. I added several references. I want to emphasize to everyone who regularly participates at AfD discussions that a search at Google News archive is often quite helpful if you are trying to determine whether a company is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the refs, and they appear to mention VoicePulse as one of a number of reviewed suppliers. Any magazine reviewing VOIP might chance on VoicePulse and review it, but to my mind that doesn't make it notable unless it wins awards or even a reasonable client base. Is there any indication how many people use it, what percentage of total usage that may represent, or whether VoicePulse innovates in any way? These would make it notable, rather than a few trade press reviews. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be a significant player in VOIP space; deletion would leave a hole in our coverage. Sources establish notability. Failure to assert notability is a speedy criterion, not an AfD criterion, and notable articles aren't speedied that way. Solution to overly brief article on notable topic to keep and improve, not delete. Wikidemo (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nice work by Eastmain (talk · contribs) with the References, though preferably this should be incorporated with citations into expanding the main article's body text. Cirt (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernestvoice (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - coverage in reliable sources establish notability. In this article, PC Magazine states that VoicePulse is one of the more established players in the VoIP space. which is a rather expicit statement of notability documented in a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 18 July 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 --JForget 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arcanists
- Arcanists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article does not cite any sources, and is orphaned in the way of links from other articles. It isn't really notable enough to warrant having a seperate article of its own, however parts of the article could be merged with the FunOrb article. ۩ Dracion ۩ ✎ ✉ 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — No notability as well as meeting WP:ADVERT; this is written very much like an advertisement, which has no place here. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even RuneScape is struggling with a lack of in-depth reviews, despite being a very significant online game. There is no way this single game on FunOrb is going to garner non-trivial coverage from reliable sources - non-notable. A search turns up nothing but personal blogs and fansites. Would oppose a merge - Arcanists is one of umpteen games currently on FunOrb, the number will increase month-on-month, there is no way to cover each individual game properly or equally - readers will have to go to the primary source and read the online documentation, that's what it's there for. Someoneanother 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could have been speedied as nn web content. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. No assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or at worst Redirect to Funorb It's the most popular game on Funorb, so it should at least be mentioned on that article or have it's own page. 76.212.15.113 (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This does not seem notable for wikipedia. Belongs on funorb wikia. We could add one line descriptions to the table on the Funorb article. Ultra two (talk) 08:51, 22 July 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 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pennin Manathai Thottu
- Pennin Manathai Thottu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reason for nomination unknown; completing incomplete AfD. --Geniac (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep I'm guessing the reason was notability and or lack of references. The references definitely need to be provided to show what makes the movie notable but, that is more an issue of cleanup. Article also desperately needs expansion and for editors not to remove validly placed tags. Perhaps the editor who removed the original reference tag would donate some time to providing said references and negate the need for said tag. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable film, lack of third-party reviews, and I cannot find even a credible source discussing what is the release date. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Considering the review found by PC78, vote changed to keep, though weak because I'm unsure of the film notability outside the Tamil community. --PeaceNT (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IRK!Leave me a note or two 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of google hits, and I've managed to find a review [31]. The article is ridiculously short, but I'm prepared to give it the benfit of the doubt. PC78 (talk) 07:36, 21 July 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 G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Know What They Do to Guys Like Us in Prison (2nd nomination)) Mangojuicetalk 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cemetery Drive
- Cemetery Drive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Not released as single. No significant media coverage. No cites or references means zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:51, 17 July 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 unverifiable per WP:V. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dreams of Stabbing and/or Being Stabbed
- Dreams of Stabbing and/or Being Stabbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A bootleg that was never released. "The full track listing is debated...", "but these songs were definitely released...". The article name is arbitrary. Is this a fan attributed name? No inline cites or references = zero reliability. Fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The title isn't even known, for crying out loud (borderline WP:HAMMER?). No reliable sources, no verifiable tracklisting, and bootlegs generally aren't notable anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TenPound Hammer. IRK!Leave me a note or two 16:00, 17 July 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. Wizardman 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Final RIOT! Tour
- The Final RIOT! Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not-notable. Regular home nation concert tour. No sources = zero reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete Doesnt seem to have much coverage. Album article already contains info on this. --neon white talk 04:02, 18 July 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 to Cisman Mahmoud. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bah Dhulbahante
- Bah Dhulbahante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Incoherent, nn. Placed speedy deletion tags which were promptly deleted. Lusantian (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dhulbahante, although I doubt there's anything here that would be of use there. Both articles appear to be about the sub-clan, and the target article is superior. I disagree with the nom as to notability, but that can be addressed in the target article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either redirect this to Cisman Mahmoud, or expand the text with proper attributions. I would have suggested "merge", but I am not at all sure that "Bah Dhulbahante" and "Dhulbahante" are the same: the lineage is described a bit differently in each article. This article describes a sub-group of Cisman Mahmoud, itself a part of Majeerteen. The other(?) Dhulbahante is at the same hierarchical level with Majeerteen, just under Harti. (And then one finds further confusion such as Harti being the name of both Hawiye and Darod clans...) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:13, 17 July 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 deleted and salted, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics (2nd nomination), and comments below. -- The Anome (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exopolitics
- Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In my opinion, the worldview conveyed in this article is covered effectively in other articles, while this article conveys the inaccurate impression that it is nonfiction. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont agree that this is represented as definate non-fiction. The aim was to put forward the claims of individuals and their reasoning behind it. I feel that there are a reasonable amount of sources for what i have mentioned but I do not think that I have represented the information as 100% fact nor implied that it is conventional opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was curious about the content of the article that had been recently AfD'd -- the second nomination -- because this new article came so close on its heels. The second nominated article was somewhat closer to reality; this present one is simply ridiculous. "A dead Grey" indeed. I recommend deletion, SALT, and a badly-filmed autopsy in Area 51. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have to acknowledge that there is a place in Wikipedia for the annotation of the existence of such beliefs, but that's a far cry from (a) explaining them in great detail, which leads to (b) their being lent a scrap of credence by being so annotated in an encyclopedia. I think WP:FRINGE comes into play here. The more that a theory is -- let's call it "difficult to accept" -- the greater amount of proof and verifiability by being considered notable by reliable sources ought to be present. The germ of information that defines the word "exopolitics" has been completely obscured here by WP:FRINGE. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that this encyclopedia should have this type of information available. I dont think that people's professional opinions should be ignored just because they are unconventional. You should still allow other people research to be put forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the other articles that mention et intelligence are not adequately networked. That was one of the main purposes of making this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. The extraterrestial life article is quite enough - we do no need more. And what on earth does "not adequately networked" mean? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that if someone went on wikipedia there isnt a page that talks about the overall claims of these people. so if u just wanted to research claims of et activity there isnt a page that links to the other ones like this one does. I am happy to edit the whole page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theevolutionofconsciousness (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 July 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. No actual argument was put forth establishing the notability of these bridges within the current Wikipedia notability guideline. There is no sub-guideline for bridges, so statments that they are notable because they are old has no merit. Notification of Wikiprojects is by no means a requirement, rather a courtesy, and therefore has no bearing here. WP:USEFUL covers the other baseless support comments. seresin ( ¡? ) 02:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turners Falls Road Bridge
- Turners Falls Road Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completely, totally, utterly non-notable bridge. It isn't even the main bridge across this particular river to this small town (that'd be the Gill - Montague Bridge, a bit under a half-mile away). The bridge is not a link to a highway, principal or otherwise, nor are there any sources, reliable or otherwise; even the article admits the bridge is "nondescript." Only 17 Google hits [32], all of them this article and various Wiki mirrors. As far as I can figure, the sole purpose of this article is that someone's been creating them for bridges across the Connecticut River, no matter how insignificant ... and not always accurately: the name of the town is, in fact, "Turners Falls." A redirect to Turners Falls, Massachusetts was reverted with the comment "this is a bridge, not a place." Fails WP:V, WP:N. RGTraynor 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, all of which completely fail as to sourcing and notability:
- Springfield Terminal railroad bridge, Deerfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Joseph E. Muller Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Route 10 bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rail Bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Amtrak/Springfield Terminal Railroad Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
There are numerous other such articles, although a number of the crossing articles have better claims to notability, but that will do for now. RGTraynor 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it might be worth searching for it under its official name of "White Bridge" as well as "Turner Falls Road Bridge". --BelovedFreak 15:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, you'll find, if you did the research, that Turners Falls, Massachusetts is a section of Montague, Massachusetts. It's not a town of its own. Even the article for Turners Falls says this.
- Reply: The legal municipality is named "Montague," yes, in the same way that the legal name of Rhode Island is "Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," but claiming that anything short isn't the real name would be pedantry at its worst. Turners Falls has over half the population of the five villages that comprise Montague (a political amalgamation unique to Massachusetts, but that's another story), the police station's there, the fire station's there, the local high school is Turners Falls High School, the town offices are there, and so on. RGTraynor 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Take it up with the state of Massachusetts, or with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but that's the situation. - Denimadept (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the bridges you mention, well, that's an opinion. We'll see what consensus is. You'll notice that there is a reference for this bridge. The main bridge, as you call it, for this area is about to be shut down for long overdue replacement. How, while that bridge is out, will the people cross the river in this area? This bridge could be considered the backup.
- I gave up on documenting all the Connecticut River bridges because of this kind of attitude. While I continue, it's for my own purposes, external to the Wikipedia project. - Denimadept (talk) 15:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Object to a mass nomination. Each of these bridges has different histories and qualities. It would be more worthwhile to work with WP:BRIDGE to come up with guidelines for which bridges should get an article and which should be treated within another (non-bridge) article rather than doing mass deletion nominations. --Polaron | Talk 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Afd's are fine, it never hurts to talk about stuff if anyone has a question. And bulk nominated Afd's are fine in many cases--I just don't think this is one of them. I would rather have each of these bridges addressed individually. The bridges are real, and there are plenty of bridge articles on Wikipedia. It is likely that some will be notable and others not, some will be stubs, others may be more robust artciles... but to have a clear discussion each should be handled seperately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Turners Falls bridge. The bridges between the town of Montague and Greenfield as a whole are noteworthy mainly because this is the area where most roads from the east cross into the former Franklin County seat. There have been several bridges in the area since the late 18th century that have been washed out or destroyed and new ones built to replace them at various sites between the two towns. This apparently is still true today as mentioned above. The road used by Route 2 originally went across the Connecticut River in the area but was relocated north to bypass the area partly because bridges in the area seem to need relatively constant replacement. --Polaron | Talk 16:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Allow me to quote from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The general notability guideline holds: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
- As far as the mass nomination goes, three of the articles listed above have no text whatsoever; they just have photos of the bridges, an infobox and a crossing template. The other two have three bare lines of text between them, saying nothing more than "This bridge crosses the Connecticut between X and Y." The most recently created of these articles is almost a year old, and only the first one listed has seen work since last October. I see no reason to presume further improvement possible, and challenge anyone wishing to save the articles to show evidence to the contrary. RGTraynor 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom. and his comment immediately above. Notability has not been demonstrated; Wikipedia is not a directory or a guidebook. I see no point going through a separate AfD for each bridge. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP and DO NOT DELETE = My Vote. First of all, someone needs to establish an objective and not subjective criteria. Second, the (3) "railroad" bridges were tagged under WikiProject Bridges, but not also under WikiProject Trains (probably also not under where they are located - Connecticut and Massachusetts). I went ahead and added the TWP tag to the (2) railroad ones which were not, so If I had not caught a mention on the WP Bridges page that there was more than one bridge deletion proposal ... it was WRONG to propose "Turner Falls Bridge" for deletion and then "sneak" in several others, especially when they were not tagged properly and the appropriate WikiProjects notified. Properly done the AfD notice should have been "Several crossings of the Connecticut River" and notices should have been posted on: WP Bridges, WP Trains, WP (highways? or ...), WP Connecticut, and WP Massachusetts. Personally, I find the "List of Crossings of ..." articles valuable, and it is beneficial when contributors have the time to dig up the appropriate reference materials from the organizations who either built, inspect or maintain those bridges to properly complete an article. That someone took the time and got pictures and filled in some of the basic details - there are more "notable" articles for which "noone" seems to be able to get a picture? More details can be posted for those bridges if someone takes the time. I also find it interesting that the people proposing deletion do not seem to be members of WP bridges, WP trains, ... ? not sure which WP they are a member of ? LeheckaG (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the nominator is local to the Connecticut River, which gives him some interest, but is apparently not interested in bridges as such. That's okay, it's good to have a bit of perspective contributed by someone with no interest, to some degree. I'm interested in bridges enough to have taken pictures of all the Connecticut River bridges personally, and to have acquired images of some of them which are gone, but in some cases wasn't able to easily find much (or any) information on them. I started some articles just so there'd be a starting point either for me later or for others. But previous AfD proposals have stopped me from creating more such articles, regardless. That's why there are a number of redlinks in the List of crossings of the Connecticut River. I got the images, started thinking about articles, and was stopped cold by an AfD. Instead, any such research will go into a book proposal of my own, maybe. Anyway, the image for the Route 10 bridge, Northfield, Massachusetts is kinda neat. - Denimadept (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (coughs) No "sneaking" was done; in point of fact, the span of time between the first nomination and the final one is all of 17 minutes, which time I spent looking over the 47 articles on the list and picked out six that were egregious violators. Notification of Wikiprojects is a courtesy only (and I can imagine about a dozen Wikiprojects that could be construed to have an interest), and plainly the message is getting out to yours. That being said, Wikipedia policy and guideline applies Wikipedia-wide, and individual projects don't get to set aside the requirements of WP:V or WP:N; certainly the projects to which I belong do not. Were such considerations valid, which they are not, I figure that having seen each and every one of these bridges with my own eyes and having driven over three of them matters at least as much to assess their notability than belonging to WP:BRIDGE. RGTraynor 18:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and also tagged to (2) other railroad bridges with WikiProject Massachusetts. An objective criteria would be to have the relevant WikiProjects at least assess the corresponding bridges and determine whether or not they will "make the cut-off" of bridge articles which one or more of the relevant WikiProjects would take ownership of. Has anyone taken the time to inventory which Wikipedia articles link to them? Deleting them would red-line the articles which link to them as well as break the stream of navigation boxes at the bottom of related articles. Also for instance Connecticut Historic Bridge Inventory, Historic Bridge List Historic Metal Truss Bridges in Massachusetts I believe has the (Massachusetts) railroad truss bridges on it as Historic bridges, I did not check the National Registry of Historic Places, Historic American Building Survey or Historic American Engineering Record, but I would not be surprised if at least one or more were. Writing about them is a bit lower on my list (after Alaska, Pacific Northwest in general, and Ohio, but I have a personal interest in New England - my sister's family) and I can provide you with quick searches or more reference links i.e. tell me what you need and I can provide you with the reference links you will need to fill in the details. I believe a better long-term answer might be to move certain articles or content to a different Wiki rather than deleting them "forever" from Wikipedia. To me, that the railroad bridges are "notable" and "historic" is a "no-brainer". The road ones I am less sure about (someone should check the inventories above - as well as NRHP, HABS, HAER, HALS) LeheckaG (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of the bridges appear to be listed on the NRHP, as far as I can tell. HABS/HAER documents the 11th Street Bridge over the Turner Falls Canal, as well as a covered bridge that was destroyed in 1936, and the French King Bridge east of town, but apparently none of the bridges listed in this nomination. Regardless, if there's a question about notability, it would be useful to have some sort of guideline so those of us at WP:BRIDGE know which bridges are notable enough to have articles. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Though I will abstain from voting at this point, I want to point out the somewhat related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Pierce Bridge. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP ! This article says that it is the second bridge at this site. The first bridge was a suspension bridge built in 1871. This in itself makes the article notable by the criteria of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges. More material needs to be researched and added about the original bridge and that will take time and more users. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First off, I am not finding your project's defined criteria; would you mind providing a link? Secondly, whatever those may be, no Wikiproject can override WP:V's fundamental requirement of reliable sources about the subject. RGTraynor 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that "This bridge is notable because it follows one built in 1871" would mean that "My house is notable if it follows a house built on the site in 1871" which would be clearly a losing argument in an AFD. The argument seems to also say that a bridge in a location is somehow the same "bridge" as one which previously existed near the location. Is it the structure or the site which the article covers, and how far away can the previous one be for them to be the "same bridge?" Edison (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP for all articles. (I did not realize this was the discussion for all of the articles.) All six articles are still relatively new. It generally takes more time for a bridge article to be fleshed out. Because the originator has limited information to begin a bridge article, it should not be published? Bridges don't get built overnight and nor do their Wikipedia articles. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all the articles, since there is no inherent notability for bridges and none apparently have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage about them. Wikipedia does not have articles about things just because they exist. If I am mistaken in this belief, then perhaps there should be an article for each of the mailboxes in Muncie Indiana [33] , each of which is verifiable with its own 9 digit zip code, address, box type and and pickup times reliably sourced [34]. Edison (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING is not a good argument. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep (Rail bridges) I don't have an opinion on the road bridges at the moment, but the railroad bridges appear to have been built a rather long time ago and most likely have some history. Murjax (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being "built a long time ago" or "having some history" would also apply to many churches and elementary schools, whose articles have been deleted overwhelmingly in AFDs. Some satisfaction of WP:N is needed, besides handwaving and saying "notable enough." Edison (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per PennySpender. Cacophony (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As an Englishman, I have little direct knowledge of the subject. I suspect the problem arises out of the existence of succession boxes and the list of crossings. Succession boxes work best of one can follow the succession from one article to the next, but that is impossible of there is a red link. Other series of succession boxes exists for British members of Parliament and British Peers. These have a rather more satisfacotry layout (in my view anyway) than those for these bridges. Furthermore the box heading should link to the list, which is a means of bypassing missing articles. There must be a limit to what bridges can have articles, but I think it could be argied that all those over major rivers are notable enough for a short article. At present some of the articles are very poor stubs, but they are tagged as such. My view is probably to keep all, but my lack of knowledge means my vote is a weak one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few more details to the road bridges infoboxes, and provided Denimadept with a few possible places to look for more details. Both Connecticut and Massachusetts appear to have a State interest in historic bridges. I have not gotten around to researching and updating the railroad bridges, but just glancing at them (the railroad ones) - they are probably on one or more historic lists. If someone knows of a good "authoritative" source for researching railroad bridges, it would be a good thing to post here and and WP bridges and WP trains. LeheckaG (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find AFDs like this to be a waste of community effort. What is the harm in having a stub about a bridge crossing a major river? The only people who will ever see these articles are people who are looking for them. There is no question of the verifiability of the information in them, so there is no misrepresentation, self-promotion or fraud involved. Really, what is the problem? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 06:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The problem is that Wikipedia requires, per WP:V, articles to have sources. Several of these articles had none at all, and two still have none. Obviously I can't help it if the Keep proponents ignore this fundamental requirement - a lost cause is a lost cause - but I resent the suggestion that there's some problem in taking clear policy violations to AfD. RGTraynor 02:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: are you denying the existence of certain bridges? - Denimadept (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I do not read that WP:V requires sources be entered into the article (in-line or otherwise) for every fact presented, or for the article in general. No, it requires that information entered in an article be verifiable. If a new article is written that says John Doe is the author of a new book titled Doe, A Deer, the average reader should be able to use Amazon.com to verify such a book exists (if/when they question the article). Just as the average reader should be able to verify the existence of the bridge by clicking on the lat/long link and looking at any of the commercial map sources that come up.
- WP:V does say that sources must be provided for imformation challenged (or likely to be challenged). So are you saying that the AfD nomination is a challenge to all information in the article? I still haven't got the whole system down, so help me out here. Isn't the lack of references a reason to tag the article as Unreferenced, not a reason to put it up for deletion.
- I acknowledge that there was/is information in these articles that could have had a reference given. I have added some in this weekend. I also see now that Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges could use some better guidelines for WP:Notability. A lot of this could have been avoided if the stub articles had started together under something like Connecticut River Crossings in Franklin County, Massachusetts (possibly with redirects from individual bridge titles) and developed there until they were worth standing on their own. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 06:05, 21 July 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 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday
- The Man Who Stepped into Yesterday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article on a senior thesis by Trey Anastasio. This is a bootleg, and as such is unofficial and prone unreliable claims. Article itself has insufficient inline citations and is unreliable. Non-notable fancruft. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and speedy close (again). While this was never released, it has seen a circulation on par with their label-released albums, albeit as band-sanctioned bootlegs. The album figures prominently in the development of the band, and, were this article deleted, would be a glaring omission in their discography. It has been covered in reliable sources. — MusicMaker5376 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bootleg so no reliable circulation figures exist. You cannot reliably comment on circulation. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think that circulation figures are the only basis of notability. See these sources. — MusicMaker5376 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aronson,Anne, "Phish Set Off Fireworks in Camden", Rolling Stone, July 6, 2000
- "Tom Marshall Amfibian 6-16-07 Philadelphia", Go Kids NJ, June 18, 2007 — MusicMaker5376 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing "unofficial" about this album. It was never released because it was recorded in college. The songs were staples of their concerts. — MusicMaker5376 15:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, agree w/ MusicMaker5376 (talk · contribs) that there has been enough coverage in WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies WP:RS and passed AFD with a keep decision only a few months back. 23skidoo (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The album is notable in that it has been written about by a number of reliable third parties. The article sites some of these as references. Unreliable claims should be noted as such or removed from the article, but that's a separate discussion. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important part of Anastasio and Phish history. Some early theses are notable – see Hillary Rodham senior thesis for example – and this is one of them. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:11, 18 July 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XYZ (band)
- XYZ (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A "proposed name for an abortive supergroup". This is not notable. I.e. this was never even a band, but a name for a band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The band never even existed. No substantial sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete A band that doesn't exist...hmmmm.... Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The band certainly existed, and that is documented by reliable sources. The band didn't release anything or perform in public, but they still clearly existed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cited content documenting a collaboration between members from 2 very significant bands. But not content that belongs in either the Led Zeppelin or Yes articles. So where does it go? In its own article. Its likely a splinter page created out of discussions from either the the 2 main band article talk pages. Worth holding onto somehow. If not kept then at least merged into the Page or Squire articles. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Anger22. MegX (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Anger22. Libs (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The name is how the supergroup, which did exist but released no material, is identified. The article is notable. From the book inside the YesYears release containing a history of Yes: "For a brief period, Squire and White collaborated with Jimmy Page in a new project which they dubbed XYZ." TanIrishmanSaga (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I may be biased here as a huge Yes fan,[35] but I think this was a significant project, even if nothing was ever (officially) released. Several released pieces of music did arise from these sessions (one by The Firm and two by Yes) and the article material is appropriately cited. I find Anger22's argument persuasive that it is better to cover the material here than repeat it over the Yes, Led Zeppelin and The Firm articles. That said, if the outcome of this discussion is to delete, please do make sure the content is salvaged and I'd stick it in the Yes article to begin with (as the project makes more sense within the narrative of Yes's history). Note also that there was another unconnected band (XYZ (metal band)) of the same name. I'll also do a bit of clean-up on the current article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I note five non-English language Wikipedias have picked up on this article too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 24 July 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 Merge and redirect to Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 16:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobs
- The Nobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Led Zeppelin played under this name during a concert tour in Copenhagen. This is a nice vignette, but not notable as a freestanding article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Led Zeppelin European Tour 1970. This interesting tidbit is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but could be ported more or less intact to the target article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ok, it looks like everything important (at least what I consider important) is in the other article. This should remain a redirect to the target, though. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure why the page I created for "The Nobs" would not be a notable freestanding article, and 'Led Zeppelin 1970 European Tour' would be. The incident surrounding the use of Led Zeppelin's temporary name was noteworthy and detailed enough to include many specifics. Despite including legitimate references for my sources, the article I created has basically been modified (removal of important points regarding use of "The Nobs"), extended, and simply given a different title. Someone felt it was significant enough to make all the changes for a redirect - Because if it's not, then it should be deleted altogether. A more reasonable explanation for all of these alterations would be appreciated. Yobbo14 (talk) 01:52, 24 July 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 03:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Germantown, Quincy, Massachusetts
- Germantown, Quincy, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is, uh, garbage. Twofistedcoffeedrinker (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Delete'. While the nomination could have been a bit more gentle - this article reads as if written by a child - there is nothing to salvage here. Real places generally are notable, but we all ready have an article on Quincy, Massachusetts, and there's nothing here to merge there. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've stricken my delete !vote as there is no comparison between this article and the one originally nominated. Obviously keep per WP:HEY. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Afd is not cleanup, and articles shouldn't be deleted just for being badly written. However, there is no reason that I can see that this particular suburb needs its own article per Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation). Any future information about the suburb can be added to Quincy, Massachusetts. --BelovedFreak 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While I've written a couple neighborhood articles for Quincy, and no doubt will write more, it'll take some digging to come up with some sources for Germantown (for one thing, one of the very last clipper ships ever built was built there) and I've a bit on my plate right now. I can always recreate the article when I've enough to make a decent one. RGTraynor 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Neighborhood articles for places with distinct neighborhoods are generally notable. A cursory web search shows several potential sources. The article just needs to be cleaned up to be more comprehensible and to conform to a neutral point of view. --Polaron | Talk 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NPT, Xymmax and Beloved Freak. JohnCD (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is only a proposed guideline. And even then, the topic is notable according to that proposal because the topic is discussed in a few books and magazine articles, e.g. "A History of Old Braintree and Quincy" (W.S. Pattee). The current state of the article should not be the primary gauge of notability of a topic. --Polaron | Talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this is a sufficiently distinctive neighborhood for an article, since there a sources. And if one actually believes the general notability criterion supersedes everything else, the presence of the sources would make this an automatic keep. ) If the article is inadequate, goimproveit. DGG (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Polaron has started cleaning it up. Seems like there's plenty to say about it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zagalejo and DGG. Given that Quincy is an old and rather sprawling city which is strongly neighborhood-identified, it does make sense for individual neighborhoods to have their own pages (provided there are sources available, which in this case there are). Moving geographical and historical information on all ten-or-so neighborhoods to the Quincy article would likely make a mess. A sensible alternative might be the creation of Neighborhoods in Quincy, Massachusetts. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in agreement with RGTraynor, Polaron, and Fullobeans. I'm all for an expanded Wikipedia presence for Quincy neighbourhoods based on the established history and size of the city and its constituent parts. The City of Quincy website has neighbourhood information, and one could find more relevant information online or in print to add easily enough. Aepoutre (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree w/ above rationale by Polaron (talk · contribs), amongst others. Cirt (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the Germantown neighborhood has a distinct history, see DGG (talk · contribs) above. Wikipedia material on the several neighborhoods of Quincy has been slowly gaining ground over the course of two years. I found the rather bizarre original entry earlier this morning and was preparing to clean it up when I was called away on an errand. Upon my return, much of the research I had already prepared had been added to the article. There are over twenty passages describing Germantown and its history in the Pattee history mentioned previously. I disagree with the idea of moving the various Quincy neighborhood articles to the main Quincy article and also disagree with the creation of an all encompassing "Neighborhoods of Quincy, MA" article. The neighborhoods are quite distinct when reference to them is found in histories of the American revolution. Along with RGTraynor (talk · contribs) and Polaron (talk · contribs), I have contributed to the various articles related to these neighborhoods. The AfD was added based on the original text, not on the article now advanced to its present content. Sswonk (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a whole new article, and would not have raised eyebrows. Anyone who wants information on the subject can try a Google search for germantown quincy "patriot ledger"; there's plenty of published material there. Fg2 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 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 Merge (non-admin closure). The article should be merged to Club Penguin. Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Penguin Chat
- Penguin Chat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Club Penguin; no reason to have a separate article IRK!Leave me a note or two 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Club Penguin. MuZemike (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Club Penguin, although a lot of the information required already exists in the History and Development section and is sourced.Gazimoff WriteRead 14:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Club Penguin. Not independently notable as the article does not have the references to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trey Anastasio (band)
- Trey Anastasio (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. No inline cites or references. Unreliable. Any useful information should be merged to Trey Anastasio, per the Ozzy Osbourne band being in Ozzy Osbourne. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close If it's a merge you want, AfD is not the place to go. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want a merge, but my point was really that this info should be in the artist's article anyway. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Trey Anastasio. Does not meet notability guidelines for a separate article. Their notability rests entirely on Trey Anastasio. This info should be in the musician's article.--BelovedFreak 16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. Surely cases like this are better handled through merge proposals rather than through the use of deletion policy. Bondegezou (talk) 21:28, 20 July 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. Wizardman 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macedonian Cross
- Macedonian Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced stub about a type of ornamental cross that some people seem to want to stylize into a national-relgious symbol. It is apparently true that some people in the Macedonian Orthodox Church have used this design for a medal of some sort (see this article [36] which seems to be talking about that and from where the original illustration of our page was also stolen). But the claim that this is a traditional and specifically Macedonian ornament, that it has been "discovered" in several churches (how? was it hidden or unknown previously?), and that it has been discussed as such by "international archaeologists" seems unsubstantiated (I don't know if that newspaper article makes claims to that effect, but I'd be wary about accepting it as a reliable source anyway.) Most likely, this is an entirely non-notable movement by some small group of inventing a symbol for themselves. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the claims made by the article could be verified by any of the 200+ Google hits for "Macedonian Cross". This is nothing more than WP:CRUFT. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To be fair, the more relevant google search would apparently be for Македонскиот крст, which has a handful of hits, essentially two newspaper articles dealing with the use of the design on a church medal and a few forum threads based on these. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Sounds more like some local artistic variation which someone is trying to build into a national symbol in support of a new nation. All of this is highly controversial but the national tradition should be built on real facts and not on trivial fabrications. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I doubt even a handful of sources could make this a decently notable article. Köbra Könverse 11:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment May be merge with east orthodox church cross. Nobonobo (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. keep definitely. notability is proved. Cukiger (talk) 04:24, 23 July 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 and merge (non-admin closure). The article should be merged to Trey Anastasio. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trey Anastasio Band
- Trey Anastasio Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. This is "unofficial name" of Trey Anastasio's touring band. Non inline cites or references. Not reliable. Anything of use can be merged to Trey Anastasio. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Why is this at afd? — MusicMaker5376 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Trey Anastasio. Does not meet notability guidelines for a separate article. Their notability rests entirely on Trey Anastasio. This info should be in the musician's article.--BelovedFreak 16:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close. Surely cases like this are better handled through merge proposals rather than through the use of deletion policy. See also Trey Anastasio (band) and the AfD there. Bondegezou (talk) 21:29, 20 July 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, i'll userfy if requested. Wizardman 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hazrat Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah Al Qadri Al Gillani (Moulvee Jee)
- Hazrat Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah Al Qadri Al Gillani (Moulvee Jee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Just created. I didn't know what to make of it, but if I had to guess I'd say it's unsourced stuff. Google turns up nothing for "Hazrat Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah Al Qadri Al Gillani" or "Moulvee Jee" Adoniscik(t, c) 13:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 16:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think google is not the only source of information . There have been many other sources of information when there used to be no google at all.I have lots of works of Hazarat Mohammad Ameer Shah but mostly are in urdu and now many people will team up to add to this article.Website is under development the data is being gathered and being translated into english finally it will be dumped here on wiki which will later on used to populate the contents of the website. mean while see this link http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv8-msgr&p=moulvijie&type=
and http://hindko.pk/bod.html ...a student mentioning his name at his own website http://drahmad.org/page2.htm If any other information is needed do contact me here or at shiz409@yahoo.com. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the article is a mess. Please acquaint yourself with wiki formatting and the WP:MOS. Secondly, we need to be able to verify the contents of the article, which means reliable sources. I don't see much in Google for any "founder of Qadria". --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that helps me decide. If all you have for support is one web forum with less than two dozen posts I would have to say this article fails the notability test. --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I thought maybe Google Books would have something...it does. On page 49 of Shah Latif and His Message we find "The Qadria Sect. The founder of this sect was Sheikh Mohyuddin Abu Muhammad Abdul Qadir bin Saleh Musa Jilani. He was born inn 470 Hijra (1077 AD) and died in 861 Hijra (1166 AD)". This is in disagreement with your article. Does it refer to a different sect by the same name? WE need more information; this is why I am pressing for reliable sources. (Please add your responses after mine instead of revising your previous ones.) --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable with no Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, per the discussion above, this seems to be an advertisement in the making. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please read again i have clearly said that Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah is the decendent of Hazrat shiekh Abdul Qadir Jilani http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadir_Jelani & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul-Qadir_Gilani. the founder of Qadria order ...Secondly qadria is not a sect its a sufi order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadri ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadiriyyah as far as the text formating is concerned i do accept i am not good at it that i can correct ...the problem with the data here is that most of the books are in urdu , under translation ....sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah remained the Founding Patron: Syed Mohammad Ameer Shah Qadri Gilani and his son Patron:Syed Noorul Hassnain Gilani that you can confirm from, http://hindko.pk/bod.html... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete. So we are discussing "Sayed Mohammad Ameer Shah Qadri Gilani" who happens to be a descendant of Abdul-Qadir Gilani. I see they even have a Web site... I suggest you start a new section under Abdul-Qadir Gilani for his descendants. If you can find enough reliable sources to write at length, we can split it off into a new article. --Adoniscik(t, c) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realy appreciate your hard work ..very much oblieged and impressed to see your efforts and interest in getting the right information on wikipedia,,, let me mention that the website you have refered gvies information about another Ameer Shah Qadri who passed as mentoined on the site "He died in 1692 A.D (1102 H) and buried at Hujra Shah Muqeem." He passed in the mughal era as mentioned on the site " During his stay at Delhi, Emperor Alamgir came to meet him but he went to toilet before arrival of Badshah. Alamgir waited some time and then sent his son to enquire about him. He came back with this news that Syed Sahib has disappeared. So Alamgir come back without any meeting with him. After this incident when his search begun, a strange thing come in to knowledge of residents of Delhi that Syed Muhammad Ameer Gilani was sitting on Qutab Minar. "
Your suggestion is valauable about starting a subsection on Abdul-Qadir Gilani ..it needs much more time to gvie all the missing links Sayed Muhammad Ameer Shah is the decendent of Shiekh Abdul Qadir Jeelani at 24th generation..
This family belongs to the Hazrat sayed Abdul Razaq who was the son of Hazarat sheikh Abdul Qadir Jeelani and later on one of his decendent in 1060 Hijra came to Thatha in the sindh province of Pakistan name Hazarat Sayed Abdullah Shah Ashabi http://www.geocities.com/jawedom/memon.htm ...and http://wikimapia.org/6133070/Abdullah_shah_ashabi_tomb .To work out all these links and thier verification from web source might take ages for a person like me. can you guide me that how to put this page in invisible mode for the time being and when we have enough data we should put it online ??? Thanks again for your help .Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should create a subpage (see also WP:Subpages). Please archive your writing before the article gets deleted. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more references. Books of Muhammad Amir shah Qadri Gilani are available even in catalogs of Library of Congress http://catalog.loc.gov/ You can search the name "Muhammad Amir shah" and you will easily find out at least following books (names of the books are also in Urdu)
- 1 Taskirah-yi ḥuffāẓ-i Pishāvar http://lccn.loc.gov/sa67003917
- 2 Tazkirah-yi ʼulamā va mashāʻikh-i sarḥad http://lccn.loc.gov/78931081
- 3 Maʻārif-i G̲h̲aus̲-i Aʻẓam : tarjumah va tashrīh-i Dīvān-i G̲h̲aus http://lccn.loc.gov/86930708
- 4 Taz̲kirah-yi Abūlbarakāt Sayyid Ḥasan Ṣāḥīb Qādrī Gīlānī http://lccn.loc.gov/84930044
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Masyed (talk • contribs)
- Okay, good. Part of the problem is that this fellow's name seems to have several transliterations. Are there any English sources? --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some english sources http://breakingnews.augustachronicle.com/terrorism/stories/092601/926proof.html same interview at another link with graphics http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/09-01/09-27-01/a02wn013.htm Another link to Prof Dr Muhammad Masud Ahmad research work which was translated by Prof. M.A . Qadir(Ex Principal Govt. Degree College, Sukkur, Sindh Pakistan) and is printed by IDARA-I-TAHQEEQAT-E_IMAM AH MED RAZA INTERNATIONAL (25-Japan Mansion, Regal (Raza) Chowk, Saddar Karachi)www.imamahmadraza.net in which he has given references on Page#34 line #26 , 27, 33 and on page # 45 line # 03 or 37th Reference in bibliography. http://www.geocities.com/shiz409/MoulviJieReference_DrMasaudThesis.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also see this link about his demise news where governer of NWFP province condolence is given the source is PPI pakistan(From Pakistan Press International Information Services ©RIGHT 2004 Financial Times Ltd. Limited)& Publication: Asia Africa Intelligence Wire Publication Date: 28-OCT-04 http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-14203089_ITM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qadri409 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 July 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 03:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Darcy LaPier
- Darcy LaPier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability concerns. Based on the article, and their record at IMDB, I'm not sure they pass WP:N. rootology (T) 13:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- based on a Google News archive search, I think this person is probably notable. There are over 100 news hits and some look like something more than passing mentions. The article needs better refs, however. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, numerous WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 20 July 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 --JForget 00:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamehendge
- Gamehendge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable. Verging on fancruft. No inline cites. No reliability. How can songs have a fictional setting. Any useful information can be merged into songs that are 'set' in Gamehendge. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This saga is the backbone of many of Phish's songs. The songs in this article don't have their own articles; most of them redirect back to their album articles. I don't see the sense in advocating that this article be destroyed to create several related articles. Not having inline cites is not grounds for deletion, and the reliability rests on the external links. As for not understanding how songs can have a fictional setting, I'm not sure what that has to do with whether this article should be deleted, but if a song tells a story about a place that doesn't exist, it would be a "fictional setting". — MusicMaker5376 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Phish. It needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of their subject to meet notability guidelines. I can't find any. The external links cited in the article at present don't count as independent reliable sources. If the songs that use this fictional world aren't notable themselves then why should Gamehendge be? Any relevant info worth keeping can be kept in the band's article. --BelovedFreak 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about these? This? This? Perhaps you couldn't find any because you didn't bother looking. — MusicMaker5376 18:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I did bother looking, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered commenting. Phish.net appears to be a fansite, doesn't really count as an independent secondary reliable source. This book seems to cover it somewhat, and may count, but I'm not really seeing significant coverage. The article doesn't really show the subject to be notable either, in my opinion. If notability was clear from the article, and backed up by multiple reliable sources, I would possibly agree with keeping the article. I just can't see it meeting guidelines as it is.--BelovedFreak 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Phish.net is run by Ellis Godard, who also runs one of Phish's charities -- The Mockingbird Foundation. While working on Phish, we had the same question regarding Phish.net. Please see the discussions here, here, and here. It's billed as "Phans for Phans", but the guy who runs it has a close, personal relationship with the band. Generally, news updates, "What's going on with the band", things like that are taken with a grain of salt -- we (I) wait for third-party confirmation -- but it's a great source for all things Phish, historically.
- This book, at some 800 pages and in its 14th Edition, is generally considered the authority on Phish. It is provided by The Mockingbird Foundation.
- "Significant coverage", in this case must be looked at relatively. Phish, as a rule, did not receive the same kind of press as mainstream bands -- they had one video on MTV in a 20 year career -- and nonetheless were able to draw crowds of close to 100,000 fans. (See the picture of the crowd on The Lemonwheel -- that crowd was about mid-sized in their largest concerts.)
- This song cycle is an extraordinarily notable aspect of their career. Its lore is woven through Phish's entire career. Songs from it would show up on playlists from time to time, but, as a whole, they were performed together, I believe, three times. Those shows are considered the holy grail of Phish -- the band that Rolling Stone called "the most important band of the nineties." — MusicMaker5376 03:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MusicMaker5376, I am persuaded that notability guidelines are met.--BelovedFreak 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore satisfies WP:GNG. The article has several reliable references, in the External links section. Also, the topic is significant to the music and history of Phish. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - Per MusicMaker5376's comments. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:19, 22 July 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. Despite the good faith references, ELs, and other improvements, there's not enough information about the site from third-party, verifiable sources - not the same thing as information from the site about itself - to meet WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 05:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Square Enix Music Online
- Square Enix Music Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined prod. Non-notable fansite. I found it on recent changes patrol and was going to CSD it but it seemed legitimate. It turns out it is not associated with Square Enix but rather is a distinct and non-notable entity. Plenty of web hits exist, but they are forums on the site itself, blogs, and regular hits point TO the site, not independent coverage ABOUT the site. Frank | talk 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I said in the prod, it seems to be a vanity article about a simple, even if comprehensive, fan page. I will grant that I PRODed it pretty shortly after creation, but I also would consider the wikilink in the 'see also' of Video game music seemed a bit leaning toward the spammy side. Also note that there seems to be a number of copyvios on the site. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Lack of notability of website established. MuZemike (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The site is reliable and cited extensively in the FF discography articles, but it isn't notable in itself to warrant an article. Kariteh (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete; reconsider Hi i'm extremely sorry I don't know how to work this talk page. And i understand your concerns; but i did not get the chance to change anything in the last 8 hours. please see what i have written under bootlegs + information for consumers. my case is this: there are not many RELIABLE websites for information and links to legitimate online stores. i have been a victim myself of bootlegs, before this website helped me. it is not just for fans. it is a place for genuine Square Enix information, and it helps the company in making its sales. please let me know what you think, thank you very much Andrelim1 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That really doesn't have any bearing on the notability of the site. There's plenty of places that warn against boots. There's plenty of places to find info for 'reliable' online stores. There's also plenty of articles on WP about places where one can easily pirate, to say nothing of buying bootlegs (you can buy them on Amazon if you're not careful). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear your sympathy, but Wikipedia is not to be used as an advertisement vehicle; it's for verifiable information. MuZemike (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, if the issue is notability (which i did not know exactly beforehand), please explain further: i just read the notability guidelines and i want to know which point in particular you are talking about - and i don't see how this isn't verifiable information. the article is for general interest/information as well. and also, 'plenty of places'?: this is about the most well known website for this sort of information; just type it into google. other than these, i understand the points/concern; thank you for telling me. (and when i state these points, they are never intended to offend.) Andrelim1 (talk) 01:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is so, we need only to see the reliable sources that say so. Google hits are not necessarily reliable sources; notability should not be confused with popularity. Frank | talk 02:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added an external link from VG Frequency - presented by OverClocked ReMix, which is in Wikipedia as well. it talks about Chris/SEMO's website interview with a composer. will try to improve more. thanks Andrelim1 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The webmaster of SEMO is away. I believe he may have more notability references..need to await his return. but the link from VG Frequency/Overclocked is still there. Andrelim1 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The webmaster is not a reliable source. Please read the welcome page, and also about notability. The question here is not whether or not the site exists, because it clearly does. The question is whether or not it is notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia. Frank | talk 10:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The webmaster would have a conflict on interest and his involvement would give the article less credibility, not more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- i agree with you, but i'm not saying he is the one who's going to do the notability part. im saying that i believe he has received some praise about the site from various composers that have contacted him. i'm asking the webmaster simply because i don't have access to this secondary info. of course it would be ridiculous to ask him to state the notability of his site! and, is the link i have supplied before considered to be a reliable secondary source? it is a peer/similar website (powered by Overclocked) coverage praising SEMO's 'thorough interview'. do you consider that to be a sign of notability, considering OverClocked ReMix itself is in wikipedia (which means it should be reliable since it got there in the first place)? Andrelim1 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That link made me take another look at the site -- I didn't see it before, but the sheet music section (and to a lesser point the downloads section, as they appear to be complete tracks) is clearly a copyvio. While as I said above, that's not an inherent reason to deny it an article on WP, but it's just another issue that needs to be considered. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'These scans are provided solely for sampling use and as a reference resource for occasional arrangers, album reviewers, and piano players. If you need this sheet music often or for performance purposes, please support the artists by purchasing this book using the store links provided above.' there are links to purchase the sheet music, the website has already issued a disclaimer saying to support the artists. it promotes the sheet music. as far as i've seen, the downloads have all been about 20-30?sec samples(not sure about exact length but ive never seen a whole song). The disclaimer is clear; it is ultimately the responsibility of the downloader. i'm going to sleep, goodnight. hope it's notable enough. if not, the webmaster should be back in 3+ days. can't guarantee anything until then. Andrelim1 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked out the main DL page and they are clearly full legnth tracks, at least on the 'featured of the week' ones. Also, adding a disclaimer that one should buy if they like doesn't mean you get around potential piracy issues; again, this may or may not have a complete bearing on the notability of the site, but blatently linking to such a site goes against the grain of what WP represents. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'These scans are provided solely for sampling use and as a reference resource for occasional arrangers, album reviewers, and piano players. If you need this sheet music often or for performance purposes, please support the artists by purchasing this book using the store links provided above.' there are links to purchase the sheet music, the website has already issued a disclaimer saying to support the artists. it promotes the sheet music. as far as i've seen, the downloads have all been about 20-30?sec samples(not sure about exact length but ive never seen a whole song). The disclaimer is clear; it is ultimately the responsibility of the downloader. i'm going to sleep, goodnight. hope it's notable enough. if not, the webmaster should be back in 3+ days. can't guarantee anything until then. Andrelim1 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- did anyone read my last message? i believe i have improved it considerably to show notability to prevent deletion. can you please tell me what you think so i know what's going on? thanks everyone. sorry for hassle. i also added 2 links, from a collection of many links, that show the website itself is very often quoted as a source of information and the website is constructively talked about to an extent. Andrelim1 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the article neater, reference-wise. Still awaiting feedback. Andrelim1 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the website described is seemingly designed for a very niche market (Square-Enix game music enthusiasts), the market itself is of a demanding nature when the issue of reliable and original products relating to the music of Square-Enix productions. This site provides what I believe to be the premier source of links and thorough information for any avid enthusiast wishing to purchase or research the composers and music detailed. Furthermore, regarding notability, the site and its webmaster have conducted interviews with composers directly related to the site's subject, certainly a notable achievement for a fan-administered, not-for-profit website. As previously described above, the site has been noted by larger pages as a worthy and extremely useful source of information for the intended market. As covered by the sixth reference regarding this issue, the site has been regarded as notable by the VGfrequency website (among others) as an essential source of reference for the Square-Enix fanbase. 1Bhaskar3 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Bhaskar3 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC) NOTE: This comment was provided by an account with no other contributions to the project, created approximately 30 minutes before the comment was entered.[reply]
- NOTE TO CLOSER Note that much of the above text is one user updating the work on the page (take is as you will) -- and the fact that much work was done means it /may/ be possible that the first !votes aren't fully as relevent as they otherwise would be (including my own). I'm sure anyone closing will see this fact, but I just want to be sure. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok what does that mean now? forgive me; for i am unfamiliar with wikipedia conventions Andrelim1 (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that I'm noting to the person who decides the final result of this AFD that the first comments were directed toward a very different version of the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. IT notifies the admin handling this AfD that the content/structure of the article is different now than it was when it was nominated for AfD. It can be a good thing, as it tells the admin that a good-faith effort has been employed to save the article from deletion. MuZemike (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's still not a single reliable source showing a shred of notability in the article. I certainly agree that a good-faith effort has been employed to save the article from deletion, but unfortunately, the subject simply isn't notable, no matter how much effort is put into the article. Frank | talk 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That's why I said can be and not is. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Thank you for all your feedback and I appreciate all of your time. I know + understand that all of you are just doing your job, so definitely no hard feelings (as pretty much everyone is a Wikipedian). Nevertheless, I have two main concerns from your statements above addressed below: Andrelim1 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That's why I said can be and not is. MuZemike (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there's still not a single reliable source showing a shred of notability in the article. I certainly agree that a good-faith effort has been employed to save the article from deletion, but unfortunately, the subject simply isn't notable, no matter how much effort is put into the article. Frank | talk 21:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I believe it is slightly unfair to say that all my references do not indicate notability. The post on SEMO by VG frequency is a reliable secondary source in the context of the video game music world. Because this ‘world’ is not mainstream, it may appear to be a non-reputable source. However, the fact that the site is powered by OverClocked ReMix, a very reputable video game music organization/website featured on Wikipedia, I believe this carries some weighting that is not recognised here. Secondly, if this article follows through in deletion because of this policy of ‘notability’, and because you people seem to have made up your minds already, I would like to make one further point: I have seen some Wikipedia entries that have cited less references, of near-equivalent reliability as this article, and they still exist! This doesn't make sense! Sure, I understand that they have a tag at the top that says something along the lines of ‘may contain original research’ or ‘questionable notability’ but at least they haven’t been deleted! All I’m asking is for a bit of consistency with these policies. And I believe on the notability page, it says potential for notability should also be addressed? I admit it was stupidity of me to at first not include references, because I forgot them, and am unfamiliar with reference tags. But I believe that there is SOME notability that you have not recognized. Thank you, this should be my last message unless I am required to speak again. Appreciate the discussion and thanks for your time. Andrelim1 (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your position, and the closing administrator will weigh the discussion and the reliability of a particular source. Even if the source is reliable and independent, it still doesn't mean the subject is notable, which is really what the whole discussion has been about. Regarding other articles, it's true that there exist many articles in Wikipedia that shouldn't. I think that is inevitable when there are 6,830,643 articles in the project. I personally have deleted almost 500 articles at WP:CSD just in July. There are many more that could be deleted, but there is a process - and this discussion is part of it. You may also want to read this page, which discusses why other articles really don't matter in the context of this discussion.
- Having said all that, I (and other contributors) appreciate your efforts and if this article winds up being deleted, I hope you would not take it personally but merely as a reflection on whether or not the subject is notable. It's not about whether the article is well written or not. There are so many articles which can use help that I hope you'd find another place to contribute. And - there's no telling where this one will wind up. Because a few of us think it should be deleted doesn't mean it will be. It's not a vote, but a discussion of consensus. Frank | talk 14:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your fair opinion, while considering mine too. You must clearly all do a good job. Whether this gets deleted or not, thank you all very much. Andrelim1 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 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. Wizardman 04:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mister Dave's
- Mister Dave's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It seems like this should be sourceable, but Google doesn't give any links besides directories. Can any locals help with adding history and removed promo language? I'd love to remove this delete vote. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who originally nominated this for deletion I agree with you. I did some Web research and this business branched out into a frozen food businesss after the actual article business closed but it is a bit weak. I can appreciate that it is probably a well known eatery in the area but if there are no references then if flounders a bit. An example where this works is Sir_Henry's in Cork where I am from. The business is gone but there is enough references that it stil stands as an OK article.--BustOut (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I realise there aren't many references to Mister Daves, that is part of the reason why I wnted to create this wiki.... but I have had a google about and found a few, but I'm not sure how to reference them into my article... can you advise me at all...
- The links are :
- http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=club&t=583941
- http://brittany.angloinfo.com/forum/topic.asp?topic_id=42615
- http://www.therevcounter.com/general-mayhem/4805-mr-daves-balti.html
- http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-000048.html
any advice welcomed on how to source these links or the info would be gratefully recieved Andipeeuk (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the forum links aren't considered WP:reliable sources, I can't open the RevCounter, and the Beerhunter link only mentions it in passing. I'm sure the sourcing is out there -- can you search local newspapers for info? Sources don't have to be on the net, they just have to be accessible somehow.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources (web forums and blogs are NOT reliable sources) Mayalld (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do a google for... lye and "mr daves" or "mister daves" or "mr Dave's" you get many links to lots of people asking whatever happened to.... or is it still going... ok so there would appear to be no commercial links apart from the one to their current business but this is surely the point of a wikipedia page ??? so is me writing neutrally about my experience of mister daves not sufficient ???? if not then forget it... delete it! who cares ?!? Andipeeuk (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, no, just like I couldn't write about my experiences at Angelo's Civita Farnese or Dixie's BBQ. Save this article if you can -- it's a great feeling. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ok final attempt to placate, then you can delete it and stick what remains wherever you like :
- Not a forum referring to Mister daves ... :::http://www.birminghamplus.com/reviews/reviews_details.asp?rid=2735&iid=2107&uid=7
- Ahaaaa, and a newspaper mentioning it too !! :::http://archive.stourbridgenews.co.uk/2002/8/8/34402.html
- Are these links official enough for you ?????
- Comment Review sites where anybody can submit a review about anything are effectively the same as web forums, and letters pages from local newspapers are not reliable sources. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but there _is_ one usable link in that - halesownnews cites it as the first Balti house in Lye. Now, if that fits into the article...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commentwell I can't help but notice you have an atricle on Noahs ark on wiki.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_Ark I can't imagine there are many sources that can prove that existed either as is god.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God can't really site many non-opinion references to prove that he exists or ever has done... my point being. If I am trying to create a wikipedia page of a shop that existed a quarter of a century ago, I would have hoped there would be some flexibility as to how much info I can source that references it, considering the internet barely existed before it closed down. Andipeeuk (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I told you before, it doesn't have to be a source on the net. There are these buildings I've heard about that are known as "libraries" -- rumor has it that they were useful for research once upon a time...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but then how do I prove that I have anything then.... I could just say.. yes I went down my library and found a book that said mister daves was once a curry house... would that be sifficient for you ? sorry not wishing to seem narky .. just dont understand how some information that is not availabloe online can be sufficient evidence to prevent my online article about an old curry house from being deleted. Andipeeuk (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See Great Fire of 1911 -- much of it was sourced from an book I found in the Bangor library.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- but then how do I prove that I have anything then.... I could just say.. yes I went down my library and found a book that said mister daves was once a curry house... would that be sifficient for you ? sorry not wishing to seem narky .. just dont understand how some information that is not availabloe online can be sufficient evidence to prevent my online article about an old curry house from being deleted. Andipeeuk (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, WP:EFFORT is not a reason to keep an article. Even if you can find old newspapers or whatever you're looking through, that doesn't mean notability will be established. As it is, the article doesn't have any relevance whatsoever. IRK!Leave me a note or two 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry I must be really dumb or something... what is to say what is notable,, I thought that was the point of an encyclopedia, it documents as much as possible as a reference for anyone who may find something useful. This curry house is noteworthy in that it was one of the first to start the household name of "balti" much in the same way as the sex pistols were one of the first to start the music craze "punk" Ah well tired of trying to defend it now... as I said before delete away ! <sigh> Andipeeuk (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EVERYTHING. Also, as far as Balti is concerned, there are no secondary sources to prove that (Also, please use your signature at the end of your post, not the beginning). IRK!Leave me a note or two 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who is to say what is notable... Well, Wikipedia is. We have policies defining notability, which you should read (try WP:N), and also policies defining verifiability and reliable sources. If we didn't have such policies, then we would end up with articles on next-door-but-one's-ginger-tom etc. We also have a civility policy, which requires editors to be civil to each other. Your tone in this discussion has tended towards the sarcastic, and snarky, and it would be better all round if you adopted a less confrontational approach. Mayalld (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look apologies all round... tbh I kinda wish I'd never bothered... my tone is as such due to an overwelming sense of frustration... all I wanted was to add my bit of input into the greatest encyclopedia ever, and include something that IS of importance (albeit in a regional sense) but no more than many other of the smaller wikipedia articles. Given that after a discussion with many people from the area we all remembered Mister Dave's. but nothing appeared to document the fact that this nugget of regional gold ever existed, all I ever wanted was to mark this milestone in the history of the Balti (which it truly is!) with its own entry into Wikipedia.Andipeeuk (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Andi, we believe you that it's an important restaurant. It's just that we need the sourcing to back it up, or Wikipedia will become an indiscriminate collection of information.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 18 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wild Hearts
- Wild Hearts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected hoax article, made by a Gerald Gonzalez sock, who kept on putting point-of-view information about the actress Angel Locsin. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See this this Google result. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 13:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why does this still have a prod on it? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 14:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax article. The google hits only points to rumors written on comment pages, forums, and blogs. No ghits on reliable sources. Aside from the fact that it was originally written by a repeatedly blocked user. --bluemask (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. See this Google result. (Just having fun w/ you Kubek :) ) Even if it isn't a hoax, it certainly violates WP:NFF as no reliable sources indicating any stage of production may be found. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. It was made by a banned user, who kept on POV-ing articles about his idol, despite numerous warnings on him. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Article made by a suspected sock and fanboy of Angel Locsin. Source in Philippine Entertainment Portal does not state the actual movie title (although it says that a movie will be shot, not in the process of shooting as required in WP:MOVIE), while sources in Journal.com.ph yielded blanks. Starczamora (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Although the movie has no certain title, but the filming had already began, lets just wait for the announcement for the real title of this movie, we will just move it to its new title if ever Wild Heart is not the real title. Marimarians (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hello. Since this is your account's first edit at Wikipedia, you may not know that it isn't enough for information such as the type you mentioned to be added in the discussion. We need reliable sources to mention that fact. Are you aware of any reliable sources for that information? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Agreed; there's no reason for making the article, as it's still in progress and contains speculation, which may turn up to be incorrect. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if filming hasn't began, keep if it has. --Howard the Duck 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will vote keep if and only if filming has commenced. Given the finicky nature of showbiz reporting in the Philippines, I'll set my vote to delete until such filming has begun. Needless to say, if I see a trailer for this movie on the television, I'll support keeping (or recreating) the article. For now, my delete vote stays.--- Tito Pao (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 22 July 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. Wizardman 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunk tan
- Chipmunk tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod about a colour. I can't see how this article can possibly be notable. Found very few sources, and the vast majority of the sources are about products with the colour, and not about the colour itself. Are there notability guidelines for... colours? Samuel Tan 12:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The nominator beat me to this. Largely fails WP:NOR. Non-notable and obscure at best. The original Chipmunktan article before cleanup was apparently written as a joke with just enough referencing added to avoid WP:HOAX. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The information in the article about the origin of the color needs to be cited, but the article should not be deleted. It is a commonly used color name - a google search yields 217000 hits, so the refs are out there. The article should also be written in a more encyclopedic style. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My Google search on "chipmunk tan" comes up with about 1,020 hits. The overwhelming majority of those hits are for the same brand of boys' cargo pants plus a hit for men's cargo pants. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only 1070 google hits on the phrase "chipmunk tan". Non-notable. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, likely original research or an anachronistic neologism. The 1970s were indeed the decade of tan/brown/gold/green(article) and there were thousands of named colors in that range that were sold in various forms.
None of them appear to have had this name judging by sources (maybe that Taubmans paint). --Dhartung | Talk 01:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While phrases like "slightly nauseating hue," "quickly gained popularity with certain office-worker subcultures," "invalid name for a color" and "not invented by a marketing department" are usually calls for editing rather than deletion, the article presently contains no encyclopedic information. This Google search gives me 63 results, which seem to describe a pair of pants. There are others, such as draperies, but really, there's not much on this color. Makers (and marketing departments) routinely invent new color names, and they come and go. Let's let this one go. Fg2 (talk) 03:50, 18 July 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 unanimous vote/failure of WP:ATHLETE --JForget Could be reinstated should we officially plays in a pro league. 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ádám Bogdán
- Ádám Bogdán (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Young footballer who has not played in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. He has youth caps, but consensus is that these do not confer notability. Article has already been deleted once (via prod) for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The guy plays for Bolton's first team, seems unnecessary to remove the article. — chandler — 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't actually played at the highest level accept for youth caps. He fails WP:BIO for not being covered in reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trival manner. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly fails notability at WP:ATHLETE, having never played in a fully-pro league/competition. Youth caps do not confer notability either. Re-create if he makes a notable appearance. Keeping a player based on what squad number he has been allocated is just ridiculous. --Jimbo[online] 15:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it's very rare to see someone given a squad number in the top 11 (at the very least) without them making a single first team appearance throughout an entire season. In particular, #1 (goalkeeper), #9 (striker), and #10 (playmaker) are coveted numbers. Also following a club legend (eg. Walcott receiving #14 at Arsenal) is another sign of prestige. It's not like Gary Megson puts all his players in 1 hat, all his squad numbers in another one, and picks randomly to decide. In addition, clubs like Bolton are not known for giving players squad numbers and not playing them - clubs like Arsenal do that, in order to make up the numbers on the bench when they play meaningless games (like early Carling Cup rounds). ugen64 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The squad number is a curiosity, but a look at Bolton's squad list suggests he is the fourth choice keeper (behind Jussi Jääskeläinen, Ali Al Habsi and Ian Walker) and therefore unlikely to play even in the cups. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If this article gets deleted then so should Zoltan Harsanyi because he hasn't played either. Also I agree that they don't just randomley give out Number 1 shirts to Youth Players — Purple LuigiPurple Luigi — 12:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Shortcomings with WP:ATHLETE are hard to overlook. Okiefromokla questions? 02:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This English-based Hungarian soccer player fails WP:ATHLETE. I can't see how being a member of an English Premier League team makes a person notable, if he did not play a single match for his club. --Carioca (talk) 19:55, 21 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignacio Fernandez-Montoya de Aramburu y Rojas
- Ignacio Fernandez-Montoya de Aramburu y Rojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
article does not give any reason for notability and I could not find any reliable sources. Samuel Tan 12:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-wikipedia sources are nonexistent. Corvus cornixtalk 18:43, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G.O.T.W.S
- G.O.T.W.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Google search produced nothing. Possibly fantasy biography. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although Ghits exist for "G.O.T.W.S" most are not about this individual and the ones that are aren't from reliable 3rd party sources. GNews has nothing about him. Trying to tie him into 533comics also doesn't help as it too fails to be verifiably notable. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanius
- Thanius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable, (very) quick google search gives homepage, myspace, facebook etc. but no reviews or articles. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:49, 17 July 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 - possibly a POV fork. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Milton Orkopoulos,
- Milton Orkopoulos, (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
It is just Milton Orkopoulos but with a comma at the end. Carbonrodney (talk) 12:28, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Hook It Up"
- "Hook It Up" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Crystal ball. Unreleased single of no proven notability, from an album whose first single barely scratched the charts. Kww (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL & WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Crystal ball, no notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Identified, per above. Jезка (talk) 11:54, 21 July 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 --JForget 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tenacious D 3-D: Monsters Unleashed
- Tenacious D 3-D: Monsters Unleashed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Suspected hoax article, incorrectly tagged for speedy. No other sources for this found. EyeSerenetalk 11:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - No news sources. New Line link is false. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since the topic is not verifiable. Possible hoax. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD G3 easily a hoax. "Set in 2008", "Based on a Musical Play" are the only actual pieces of anything approaching information. There is nothing on the Real D page, Tenacious D is not Disney property so why would it be released on Disney 3D? And finally a parody of Scooby Doo 2!! Why? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete This is obviously a hoax; no movie is distributed by four major film companies. IRK!Leave me a note or two 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no verifiable information on the film. Steve T • C 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As it is lies, lies and more lies. Disney does not own the rights to Tenacious D, it is also unlikely that a film would be produced by four studios and made to aim at children as it would be strange for an act who perform to a mainly adult audience to make a children's film. No reliable source at all. The only two Ghits go to Wikipedia. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:21, 17 July 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 due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gut-wrenching Scream And Fall Into Distance
- Gut-wrenching Scream And Fall Into Distance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Uncited article which is mainly comprised of an uncited list (i.e. WP:OR). No evidence of notability or independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lacks citation, but that sound has been used in multiple movies and I can recall specifically from Starcraft. So, at least the list isn't completely false. This article should be tagged a couple of times with {{cn}} but kept --Carbonrodney (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I tried to find a source to keep this but short of buying that CD set for $800 I have nothing... Thus it is unverifiable. --Carbonrodney (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's nothing to indicate a notability for something called a "Gut-wrenching Scream And Fall Into Distance", despite claims that it's an "inside joke among sound engineers". Article says that this was first heard in a 1978 film, which indicates that screaming heard in films older than that is not "gut wrenching". But worst of all is this indiscriminate list of places where we can hear such a scream. I gather that if I watch enough episodes of Dexter's Laboratory I will, at some point, hear a gut-wrenching scream. Probably won't know it when I hear it, but I'll hear it. Yes, one can listen to the links to a sound, and say, "Oh, so THAT's what that is", but it gets back to notability. If Roger Ebert has talked about the g.w.s.a.f.i.d. please add that in as a source. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, that's just wrong. The name of this sound clip doesn't suggest any other sound is not gut-wrenching. The name is just some words describing this sound. As for not notability - its in heaps of movies! They just haven't been verified... a quick Google search indicates it's in here though: http://www.hollywoodedge.com/Premiere-Edition-1-P35C0.aspx --Carbonrodney (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no WP:RS to indicate that this is legitimate. Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced reliably. As is this is WP:SYN and guesswork. --Dhartung | Talk 01:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per IAR, you soulless bastards. :P Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have the CDs at work, its on there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.77.6.4 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines due to the sources found here which should be added to the article. Davewild (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic Fate
- Cryptic Fate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article fails to show the group has any actual notability - they've done no gigs of note, and the record label they claim their last album was released by is so big it doesn't even have a website, or anywhere else which attests to it being notable at all. Also, I strongly suspect that the creator of the article was bassist Chowdhury Fazle Shakib, judging by the creator's name and their edits to the article. Delete LuciferMorgan (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they pass WP:MUSIC#C1, and poss WP:MUSIC#C7 for this, this, this, this, this, and maybe this, but probably not. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was not particularly convinced with the sites provided by Esradekan so I looked up the band myself. Their website informs me that they won the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005. Unsurprisingly, I have not heard of such an award show but a google search revealed that "it is the most elaborate award giving ceremony on music in Bangladesh" as reported here and the "only all-inclusive music award in the country" as reported here. These are news report from The Daily Star, apparently the largest circulating English daily newspaper in Bangladesh. The band Cryptic Fate itself has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in that same newspaper here, here, here, etc. Again, that's the largest circulating English daily newspaper in Bangladesh so that seems pretty impressive for an underground heavy metal band. Other coverage for the award show includes this and this. So while the band and the award show might not seem notable to many of us, they appear to be quite notable in their own country and hence quite deserving of an article on wikipedia per criterias 1 and 8 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to disagree. While the Daily Star might be notable, none of the likes provided by Esradekan were from notable publications. Also, I don't condone group members making articles for themselves - the user even uploaded pictures of the group and freely claimed ownership of them. Finally, I'd like someone to prove the notability of the record label G-series Soundtek, if it actually exists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You state that you disagree but nothing that you wrote there has anything to do with my reasons for keeping this article. I did not care much for the sources that Esradekan provided either but surely multiple non-trivial coverage in their country's largest circulating English daily newspaper demonstrates notability. Not to mention the award they won. --Bardin (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to disagree. While the Daily Star might be notable, none of the likes provided by Esradekan were from notable publications. Also, I don't condone group members making articles for themselves - the user even uploaded pictures of the group and freely claimed ownership of them. Finally, I'd like someone to prove the notability of the record label G-series Soundtek, if it actually exists. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfactory coverage in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 21:12, 17 July 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, due to verifiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aijaz Ahmed Shaikh
- Aijaz Ahmed Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is unverifiable and notability is questionable with 52 G-hits and no G-News hits, It appears to be original research and self-promotion. It also seems unlikely that someone who only finished his master's degree four years ago would be considered "one of the greatest strategists and policy makers in international relations theory" as the article proclaims. These reasons are the original Prod reasons put out by Accurizer and Iain99. Jons63 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the AfD was placed on the article the orginal author, Axactian has blanked the page Jons63 (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on my prod rationale noted by nom. Accurizer (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged for speedy as both the logged in author, and the IP who is the only other person (?) to make significant edit have now blanked, but delete anyway as non-notable and unverifiable. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts I've removed the speedy tag as the author/IP continued to edit after blanking, so may just be confused. My delete vote still stands though. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 09:42, 17 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RaShawn McAllister
- RaShawn McAllister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BIO as not a professional athlete, nor amateur who has competed at highest level of competition, nor has enough WP:RS with substantial coverage of the subject. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable collegiate athlete, 78 G-hits, fails to satisfy WP:ATHLETE. Appears to be an autobiography. Accurizer (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BIO per nom. RS coverage is of a routine nature (game coverage and team roster changes). • Gene93k (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article barely asserts notability. The citations are weak: [37] and [38] mention McAllister in passing; the four iblhoopsonline.com references spell his name differently each time, indicative of little fact checking. —EncMstr (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article does not clear notability concerns and also does not clear WP:BIO Edeskonline (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if the best he could do was Southern Oregon and the IBL, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Corvus cornixtalk 18:47, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zack attack
- Zack attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a fictional band. There are no sources besides the show itself (so not independent of the subject) and I can't find anything on Google except lyrics and t-shirts for sale. In other words, this band hasn't been covered or discussed by a reliable outside source. Finally, the whole concept in my opinion is unencyclopedic. Reyk YO! 08:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In-world stuff shouldn't always be deleted, but this is not a notable in-world band. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to Saved by the Bell. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Libs (talk) 13:17, 18 July 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 deleted by me. The text is clearly an advertisement and describes a future event. The article could be rewritten to be more suitable for inclusion, but one would not start with this text as it is unsalvageably biased. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana State Picking and Fiddling Contest
- Indiana State Picking and Fiddling Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable musical competition that has received virtually no secondary coverage. Lincolnite (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Blatant advertising. Mayalld (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete As above. MattieTK 09:07, 17 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
San Diego Wine Tasting of 1975
- San Diego Wine Tasting of 1975 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability established. Wine tastings like this happen all the time. They may be of interest to a trade journal, wine correspondent, or a local paper but they hardly merit an entry in an encyclopedia Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. MattieTK 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. — Lincolnite (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put the cork back in and delete Non-notable event, of no lasting impact to the wine industry or the cause of San Diego inebriation. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of demonstrated notability. Hey, remember in '75 when Heitz Wine Cellars edged out Chateau Latour? We kicked their French asses!! USA! USA! Maybe it rates a mention in a history of California wines, but not its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nontable (non-notable). Wine makes me sick anyway. :-) Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll look for sources later. The notability here is that this was the beginning of the era of California wines being "respectable" and competitive with European wine. It still took years for the reputation to catch up. The Paris tasting is doubtless more famous, though. --Dhartung | Talk 01:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the best place to cover this kind of tastings is in History of California wine, rather than as tasting-specific articles. Tomas e (talk) 22:09, 18 July 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 is that this is probably a hoax. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Detroit Monkey House
- Detroit Monkey House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nominated as non-notable and so-far unverifiable - (to extent of possible hoax). Ghits for article name [39] basically just this article. No mention of this facility, its cocktail evenings or mourning bonobos on the zoo's site [40] - though Belle Isle Nature Zoo does exist, I can't find any evidence that this does. Hunting dog (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Hunting dog (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hoax article. Building in the image is the Anna Scripps Whitcomb Conservatory. Rmhermen (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the info Rmhermen, have added hoax tag to article and note on the Commons image. Picture here [41] of Anna Scripps Whitcomb Conservatory confirms. -Hunting dog (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax, even otherwise, not notable. Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:14, 18 July 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. Wizardman 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wild Bird Magazine
- Wild Bird Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm nominating on behalf of CultureDrone, as he didn't complete the nomination... Carbonrodney (talk) 07:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, give me a chance, I only started the AfD process 3 minutes ago and I can't use Twinkle here (damned IE) ! This process is all being done one painful step at a time :-) Ok, where was I.. oh yes....Contested prod, magazine asserts no notability. I'm aware that various discussions have taken place at AfD over the notability of magazines and newspapers, with some being of the opinion that all such publications are de facto notable, and others still requiring notability to be asserted. I'm interested in what the current prevailing consensus is, and whether the quality of the article has any impact. CultureDrone (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per CultureDrone --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find it in either Ulrich's, or in WorldCat. The odds are i's a minor hobbyist publication below the threashold of notability. There is a real magazine, WildBird, that is notable, see the listing at Cornell, but it does not seem to match. DGG (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wild Bird is part of the stable of animal magazines published by BowTie, Inc. If the magazine is not notable, the missing company, which also publishes Cat Fancy and Dog Fancy, has a stronger claim to notability. Re-purpose/merge to company may make sense here. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 20 July 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) 01:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AgBASE
- AgBASE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete blatant advertising for nn company. Vast majority of sources are just directory listings, and remainder look like advertising press releases from the company. Mayalld (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article does not demonstrate notability. Looks awfully like self-promotion, and the sources/references just do not demonstrate the assertions within the text that they are linked to. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. An online farmer's market? Huh? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have no idea if this is the proper way to post in here but I was unable to find another example to show the proper method, but I would like to defend my article. The sources to directories are to example the food and beverage sections within yahoo, ebay and amazon, and the inital reference is to the site the Glen Klock originally created before agbase.com, but with the same model in mind. If these references are inappropriate they can be removed. An online farmer's market is just what it sounds like, and to be fair it's not a new concept, you connect straight to the seller rather then through a middle-man website that takes a cut of the profit. I thought this concept was more commonly known but, as it appears to not be, it can be included in the article. If this page is really just going to be considered promotional, I'd like it to be explained how it is different from pages such as Massachusetts Bay Trading Company, ZipZoomfly, Winecommune.com, Warm sentiments, CheapOair and numerous other pages within Category:Online retail companies of the United States, none of which are marked for deletion or considered to be an advertisement, and yet all have more self-supporting content within the article comparitively. Gladkov Mikhail (talk) 17:10, 17 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sabir Abdus Samee
- Sabir Abdus Samee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable autobiography. Googling Sabir Abdus Samee gives 519 hits, I get more than that. Carbonrodney (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I gave this articles because in most cases it is difficult for Bangladeshi authors to come out with appropriate recognition. The is a fault of the Bangladeshi media and print industry. I think if Wikipedia helps to enter these authors they might get the recognation they are entitled to get. As far I know Sabir Abdus Samee is one of the few Bangladeshi poets who write in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenberet08 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Greenberet, that is a noble cause and as far as I know he could be a great writer who deserves a lot of attention. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do your advertising. We document already famous people, not people who could be famous with Wikipedias help. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, as Rodney explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no signs of notability yet, who knows what the future may bring. Greenberet has created a few other articles that may merit some attention. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not provide any examples of coverage of his writings the third-party reliable sources and I could not find any after a bit of googling either. (Also, nothing in worldcat that I could find). Does not pass WP:BIO and does not pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no listings for the books in WorldCat. That doesn't cover India,but if the works are well known there, it would be necessary to have references to show it. DGG (talk) 15:34, 19 July 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 already deleted. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super Cube
- Super Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page has nothing, not even a history. Just a speedy delete contest tag. If it weren't for that, I would speedy delete it! Seriously, it needs to be deleted. Carbonrodney (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy-deleted. No content, no indication of what it is supposed to be about. --Ckatzchatspy 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:01, 17 July 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, consensus is that this is a valid list. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Mecicobothriidae species
- List of Mecicobothriidae species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has existed for roughly 2 years without any of the actual species haveing a BlueLink Article. How useful is a list of redlinks? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Red links and usefulness aren't grounds for deletion. There seems to be a standardised format for detailing members of spider species, though in this case its small enough to fit in main article in others like List of Gnaphosidae species it would clearly be too large. I really don't see the problem with it existing as an article, it's verifiable and encyclopaedic information, even if boring to most of us.-Hunting dog (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you noted that it is in the main Article Mecicobothriidae? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I'd suggest that the Mecicobothriidae page was reduced to have only the genera and the list had the full list of sub-species. Like for Stiphidiidae to maintain a consistent format for pages in that subject area. Either way I think its better fixed by editing / redirecting, rather than arguing for deletion. -Hunting dog (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you noted that it is in the main Article Mecicobothriidae? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: But not for your reasons... because the whole list is here: Dwarf tarantula. It's useful information, even if they are broken links. But this page should be deleted simply because it is duplicate information. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't it be a redirect then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.91.48 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Don';t tear down the framework while itys being filled in. There are people actively working in this area. DGG (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont see it as tearing down a framework, it just seemd a pointless List when the information is already presented (succinctly may I add)in the main Article of Mecicobothriidae and having a List does not add anything of value nor points to a single BlueLink Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hunting dog (talk · contribs) and DGG (talk · contribs). It's an okay start for a list, and there is even a handy dandy WP:RS reference provided for those that would want to work on it further. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Important info list. QuantumShadow (talk) 12:01, 22 July 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 to Died Pretty, consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colin Barwick
- Colin Barwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
For a 'prolific' drummer, he has no reliable sources. The two web links only mention Colin Barwick in a secondary manner--as the band Died Pretty's drummer. The second web link briefly says Barwick was a band member from 1983 to 1985--or 2 short years. Hardly notable. Leoboudv (talk) 05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect to Died Pretty. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Barwick beyond his role in Died Pretty. There's an interview reproduced on the DP website, but if drumming for that band is his only real claim to notability, a redirect may be appropriate.--Michig (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Died Pretty. No notability outside band Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 22 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gyrolabe
- Gyrolabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete due to WP:N and WP:RS What is notable about this fictional mechanical device? Article is childishly written and has no proper ending...a classic dead end page. It also lacks any reliable sources to prove any inherent notability. Leoboudv (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- unsourced, illucid treatise on an inherently unencyclopedic subject. Reyk YO! 05:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article should be a sentence on the page of whatever series it comes from. A new article is not necessary. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Either the article should improve within its been deleted or It should perish. Edeskonline (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Carbonrodney -- Jll (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary article about a non-notable fictional topic. Extremely unlikely it will ever move beyond (poor quality) plot summary of the device. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:37, 21 July 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 the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination) (serious WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:N problems not adequately addressed by keep opinions, restoration for very selective merger possible if sourced). Sandstein 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Pokémon items
- List of Pokémon items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apears to be wholly in-world game guide information that really should only belong on a FAQ page Salavat (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Reyk YO! 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not what Wikipedia is for. If Wikipedia did keep any of this, it should be on the Pokemon page and the list should be limited to important/interesting items. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Nifboy (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a merge target for Poké Ball and Pokédex, which barely meet notability for their own article, but which should probably be mentioned somewhere. Merging would help all three articles. – sgeureka t•c 11:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as a merge target for articles that probably should have been deleted. As for SGE's suggestion, Poké Ball can be upmerged to Pokémon, as it's core to understanding but very simple to explain, and Pokédex requires such little explanation (talking electronic Pokémon encyclopedia) that it can be simply explained on first mention wherever we're linking it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pokémon game mechanics, and the same should happen with Poké Ball, Pokédex, Pokémon Center and Pokémon moves. Artichoker[talk] 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just say "it's notable". You have to demonstrate it with reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as per the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think aspects of Pokemon are notable? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what you or I think. Anyone can see an article with zero reliable independent secondary sources, which means this article fails our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see it passes that guideline by covering a notable and verifiable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what you or I think. Anyone can see an article with zero reliable independent secondary sources, which means this article fails our guidelines. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think aspects of Pokemon are notable? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You can't just say "it's notable". You have to demonstrate it with reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as per the WP:GNG. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would also like to point out that this article is technically not a list, but rather a general description of the various types of items in the Pokémon universe, and, if kept, should probably be renamed to Pokémon items. Artichoker[talk] 16:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and transwiki to a strategy guide Wiki of some sort for the same reason described on Pokemon types. MuZemike (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It supports other Pokémon pages by providing a single article to link to for any Pokémon item. That way, not every single article has to describe every item in its body; you can just link to this list, so it helps to keep the articles' prose clean and concise. SunDragon34 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Article fails to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY through reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, as per the WP:GNG. Also fails the WP:VGSCOPE presumption that game items generally don't belong in wikipedia. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked. It's unfixable because it's completely non-notable. So delete it. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you check? And it's obviously not non-notable otherwise it would not have survived an earlier AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was re-nominated after a no-consensus keep, because no sources have been produced to establish the notability that past editors have claimed. Find the sources, or let it go. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no pressing need to delete this article that is clearly important to members of our community. The various aspects of this list appear in published sources. For more on Pokeballs, see [42]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all of those great sources, you should help source the article, LGRdC. That would really give everyone reason not to delete. Artichoker[talk] 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll start doing so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good so far, if I get time I'll try to scrounge up some sources too. Artichoker[talk] 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll start doing so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all of those great sources, you should help source the article, LGRdC. That would really give everyone reason not to delete. Artichoker[talk] 19:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no pressing need to delete this article that is clearly important to members of our community. The various aspects of this list appear in published sources. For more on Pokeballs, see [42]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was re-nominated after a no-consensus keep, because no sources have been produced to establish the notability that past editors have claimed. Find the sources, or let it go. Randomran (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you check? And it's obviously not non-notable otherwise it would not have survived an earlier AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked. It's unfixable because it's completely non-notable. So delete it. Randomran (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This sort of combination is the preferred method of doing things. Acceptingit as a compromise would save a lot of arguments. DGG (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were the preferred method, it would be supported by our policy and guidelines. Our policies suggest this article should be deleted: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's the compromise. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if such sources don't exist, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no third party sources. Only second party guides authorized by Nintendo. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true: from Code Red in the Boardroom: Crisis Management as Organizational DNA - Page 2 by W. Timothy Coombs - Business & Economics - 2006 - 137 pages: "On December, Burger King announced the recall of the Poke Balls. The recall effort included full-page advertisements in USA Today." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be useful for an entirely different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe any content from this atricle can be merged, I would of course not oppose your doing so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the entire Poké Ball article should be merged here. Artichoker[talk] 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe any content from this atricle can be merged, I would of course not oppose your doing so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be useful for an entirely different article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true: from Code Red in the Boardroom: Crisis Management as Organizational DNA - Page 2 by W. Timothy Coombs - Business & Economics - 2006 - 137 pages: "On December, Burger King announced the recall of the Poke Balls. The recall effort included full-page advertisements in USA Today." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no third party sources. Only second party guides authorized by Nintendo. Randomran (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, if such sources don't exist, but that doesn't seem to be the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were the preferred method, it would be supported by our policy and guidelines. Our policies suggest this article should be deleted: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's the compromise. Randomran (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The content of this article is irredeemably unencyclopedic. If Poké Ball were merged here, then this article would have to be cut down to the bare minimum about that, then upmerged AGAIN anyway. If anyone has any arguments pertaining to the subject of this article, but please don't sidetrack an attempt to remove some horrible content by suggesting that we merge some other, slightly less horrible content here, because it doesn't fix the problems. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note WP:UNENCYC, as aspects of Pokemon are indeed encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That book on amazon is an unofficial encyclopedia, which sounds to me "fan book", just because its got the word encyclopedia on it doesnt mean its within the scope of a real encyclopedia Salavat (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The key is that it's an independent, second party source. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO you could sum this article up by removing the guide like stuff into something like this:
The Pokémon games, anime, and manga have a variety of items unique to their fictional world. Many toy companies have made replicas of these items, such as life-sized Poké Balls and Pokédexes. Within pokemon items are litterly classed into specific groups such as "assisting items" where they can aid a pokemon in areas such as healing or protection of some kind. "Enhancement items" which can improve the pokemons overall power of abilities. "General purpose tools", items which aid the main character through the world of pokemon. "Key Items", items which play a major role within the games. Items such as the Pokeball (an item used for catching pokemon) and pokedex (item to help identify pokemon) have proved most popular and have been since made into toys..
In other words a mentioning berries and then berry related items seems hardly necessary compared to "In pokemon many items have been created to help aid the pokemon health and battle performance". Salavat (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO you could sum this article up by removing the guide like stuff into something like this:
- The key is that it's an independent, second party source. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on sourcing. The unofficial encyclopedia appears to be published at an extrememly low volume. A google search for the publisher turns up the amazon page for the pokemon book as the top hit. As for the "official" encyclopedia, we can come back to the bionicle debate about this, but how independent you feel that is boils down to how discriminating you feel Scholastic Inc. is in choosing to publish a work for hire. the rest of the sources are not independent from the game-maker in any significant way. DGG has a point above about the navigational value of lists and the possiblity that we might bend WP:N in order to keep a list that housed information useful to expanding knowledge about the subject but unhelpful in individual articles. While I have agreed with that point in the past I am inclined to apply it only very narrowly. This may be one of those points, assuming that the list was shortened considerably and the WP:GAMEGUIDE content removed. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect/Merge (i.e. I don't care what happens to the history, but an article here isn't necessary): Salavat and AMiB have succinctly described everything that really needs to be known about this topic and its assorted subtopics, and it fits in about two paragraphs. Nifboy (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure, this is a secondary source. However, I believe a few editors here are skipping right over a very important word from Wikipedia:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." That source is not "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. If we have this much trouble finding appropriate sources for Poké Ball (a separate article), this article is looking pretty bleak. Pagrashtak 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOREASON. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WHYDONTYOUREADMYCOMMENTTHATISLIKETWOLINESUPTHATOUTLINESACLEARANDCOGENTREASONFORDELETIONSERIOUSLY. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should have instead replaced "comment" there with "delete" above rather than add the delete on a separate line. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you should have just let it slide instead of lecturing me. If you think I'm not working up to your standard at AfD's, then please make a comment on my talk page. I will remind you that I've asked you to not lecture me before. others have asked you not to link WP:AADD to every response that you feel isn't up to snuff. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions are not lectures and in discussions we interact. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, warrants an article as an important aspect of a highly notable topic. Everyking (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just said the exact same thing on the other pokemon discussion, without veryifying your argument. The fact that this list is related to pokemon doesnt mean the list itself is notable. Salavat (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not an appropriate article per WP:VGSCOPE, fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge/Elaborate Clear it up, merge it to a fuller Pokémon item-related article (I suggest Pokémon game mechanics, it has an incomplete item section), or actually finish it! Micro01 (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon is more than just a game. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is only about the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we could/should expand it accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is only about the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon is more than just a game. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is linked to in (by my count) 106 mainspace articles and 119 project pages. Quoting WP:OSTRICH: "If the context seems unfamiliar or non-notable, consider first whether the article or list is a necessary fork of a larger main article or series of lists. Think about whether deletion of the sub-topic would disrupt the overall cohesiveness of the main topic." Again, I think that, while some believe this article's individual notability is unverified, it supports the other articles in its topic and, therefore, should not be deleted. SunDragon34 (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSTRICH is an inaccurate essay. That's why we have guidelines like WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Even so, I don't think this disrupts the cohesiveness of other Pokemon articles since this goes into unnecessary detail as per WP:VGSCOPE. Randomran (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and should be deleted.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 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 a lack of sources that define this topic and consequently an absence of reliable sources discussing the topic. This article therefore fails WP:V since it consists mainly of original research and synthesis of unrelated sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Broad homeland hypothesis
- Broad homeland hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an article about a non-existent theory, supported by synthesis and original research. The article's creator, Rokus01 (talk · contribs), has for quite some time been conducting a campaign on Wikipedia against the Kurgan hypothesis, the most popular model of early Indo-European origins (see here for the opinions of respected science editors like Dbachmann and Mathsci on this). The closest thing we have is a single use of the phrase "broader homeland" in a 1989 book by a professor in the field named Mallory (see here), who wrote "Alternatively, we might wish to opt for a broader homeland between the Rine and Volga during the Paleolithic or Mesolithic which resolves the archeological issues by fiat". A side observation like this does not a theory make, and none of the additional sources in this article appear to use anything like the term; the article is a giant synthetic construction.
Google on "broad homeland hypothesis" turns up 3 pages of Wikipedia mirrors. Google Scholar of the same turns up nothing, and neither does a Google Books. In comparison, Google Scholar of "Kurgan hypothesis", the accepted theory, turns up 7 pages of hits, and Google Books turns up 8 pages of hits. I ran the searches with a number of related phrases, like "broad homeland theory", "broad homeland model", "broader homeland hypothesis", and so on, with the same results.
Merzbow (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For a perfect example of the type of misrepresentation going on here, note this phrase currently in the lead: "The broad homeland hypothesis is 'widely accepted'". Well, it was revealed at this discussion that the source did not use the term "broad homeland" at all in this context; only by original research does this mean the "broad homeland hypothesis" (if there even is such a thing, which there apparently isn't) is widely accepted. - Merzbow (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I can't find anything that isn't a wikipedia mirror or random geocities (or similar) site. That leads me to suspect its original research... It would be good if we could get a few people who studied this kind of crap. I studied maths, so I'm no help here - all I can do is google things and make formulas. :P --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is just the latest move in a long time war, were Kurganist POV pushers want to make the world believe that since Gimbutas Kurgan theory, there has been no progress. They wrongly insist that the credibility and authority of the current "steppe view" is due to unaltered consensus, while even Mallory nowadays uses "Kurgan theory" strictly to refer to Gimbutas hypothesis only. The most recent sourced reference to backup undue claims to consensus is Mallory's 1996 quote on "widespread support" to a theory involving the Kurgan culture (one way or the other), while he explicitly mentions the broader view also as "widely accepted". Now, this group seeks to reverse the trick and reduce the broader view to the single contribution of Lothar Kilian, contemporain to the late Gimbutas. Instead of aiming their arrows on the broader view and insist on a reduced scope (if any), they should compile actualized information on the actualized steppe view. I have other reasons to suspect this nomination to be not neutral:
- This (smoothly organized) action [43] was triggered by making false reference to a non existent claim in the article of the broader view being the most widely accepted.[44] My repeated request[45] [46] [47] to demonstrate the criticised text were dodged.[48]
- Insisting on a POV tag just because the article did not make reference to a 2006 book of Mallory,[49] [50] while this book is still hardly referred to anywhere, has a focus on the theorized PIE language within an homeland area hardly narrowed down from the corresponding broader homeland range, hardly focus on specific archeological cultures nor the history of each view and at best seeks to give an assessment on the most probable homeland
- Random accusals of WP:SYN without ever giving details on where or how well sourced and compiled encyclopedic information should result into new coctailed "facts".
- the vicious personal attacks of some opponents are well known and to them this article is just another battleground.
Please try to esteem the article on its merits, without giving prevalence to the hypercritic arguments of fanatism. Rokus01 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not think it is now the generally accepted hypothesis, but it has had significant support in the past. POV problems can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly.
First of all, this seems like a content dispute. The article proposed for deletion seems to attempt to have both an encyclopedic style and references. I see no problems there. The actual dispute seems to center more around the title than anything else.
I am by no means an expert in this field, only an interested amateur. This may not be an ideal title to discuss a (series of) alternatives to the proposed identification of the Proto-Indo-European language community with the Kurgan culture. Nobody seems to be suggesting a better one.
In the relatively recent (2006) The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (ISBN 0199296685), Mallory and Adams review the fairly wide range of suggestions for the PIE homeland, and the several different methods used by their proponents, and conclude essentially that the problem is intractable. We have plenty of historical or just sub-historical examples of language spread concurrent with technological advances (e.g. Bantu). We also have plenty of historical evidence of cultural spread or convergence among peoples who spoke unrelated languages (e.g. Plains Indians). I practice a religion devised by people who spoke Aramaic. Attempting to identify the original PIE speakers with a type of pottery or burial practice, or anything other than a written language, may be a fool's errand. It's almost as hard to guess where they're from from the meanings of plant and animal names, which can be repurposed (deer, moose, elk).
I think its important to assume good faith here, otherwise somebody's going to go Neolithic. I'm inclined to let this remain. If someone can propose a better title, I'd be open to suggestions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is precisely the content of books like that of Mallory and Adams that should be reflected here on WP. They are cautious, explain the difficulties of mixing archaeology and linguistics, and give a balanced representation of current thought and methods. That does not seem to be happening in this particular article. Mathsci (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is about a theory, based on one book by Kilian, which has not acquired any support from the academic community. The article itself seems to be synthesis and original research. It confuses Kilian's proposal with that of Hausler, who argues in favour of an easten european homeland, although they are quite different. Part of this confusion also results in false claims about the the general acceptance of Kilian's theory. There has been little academic take-up of Kilian's theory; in the only review I could find, Renfrew dismissed it as too far from mainstream theories. The term broad homeland does not seem to be currently used in mainstream literature. The fact that the article has existed for a long time is irrelevant; it is pushing a fringe point of view as if it were an accepted piece of mainstream academic research. Mathsci (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep based on Smerdis' example of independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Kilian's hypothesis is not in fact discussed in the book of Adams and Mallory, nor is the book used as a source for the article (despite my suggesting it should be on the talk page). Other authors, such as Renfrew and Baldi, indicate that Kilian's proposal is unscholarly. In "The Foundations of Latin" by Philip Baldi (1999), Baldi writes on Page 42, that "Kilian posits a vast linguistic contimuum between the North Sea and the Volga. Kilian's proposal, which is is not supported by either linguistic or archaeological evidence and argumentation, groups together a number of disparate settled agriculuralist and steppe communities. They encompass a geographic area between 2,000 and 3,000 kilometres long, which he lumps together without historical justification". Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Talk:Broad_homeland_hypothesis#Validity, otherwise merge into Kurgan hypothesis. This article is actually an {{essay-entry}} on "Criticism of the Kurgan hypothesis" by one of our leading WP:SYN-artists, Rokus01 (talk · contribs). It takes a phrase used by Mallory and unduly turns it into a supposedly stand-alone "hypothesis". dab (𒁳) 11:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think it is very silly to base deletion of an important theory on being described by various authors rather than referred to by a fixed name. Any descriptive name would do:
- "Maximum geographic extend theory"?
- "Common linguistic ancestry theory"?
- "One widely accepted IE homeland theory"?
P.S. Even sillier to propose a Merge, to contain this article theory within a competing theory: this would be like merging Tomb of the Unknown Soldier into Adolf Hitler.
Also, this is not the right place for making (never properly sustained) personal attacks and advertisements. Rokus01 (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an important theory that maybe right or wrong but nevertheless should be available in wikipedia as one of the "possible" theories. after all we do not base deletion of articles on the that "the theory is weaker than the other theories" QuantumShadow (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I rather think admin should address pittbulls that seek article deletion to escalate their private content dispute. The problem is of your own definition, since the theory -as sourced- has been evaluated and described (defined) at least two times by Mallory. This is not the first time you become aggressive when ran out of arguments: the spirit of Wikipedia is cooperation and multiple points of views. Rokus01 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rokus, describing other editors as pittbulls is uncivil. If you continue, then you could be blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis that unlike the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses, there do not seem to be reliable sources discussing a third competing theory (which would have a name if there were such sources debating a 3rd theory). A number of the references seem to be do sources which are not discussing this 'third theory' but have been used by the author of the article in what I also see as an essay simply criticising the Kurgan hypothesis. So, basically OR and Synthesis, who knows, maybe suitable for publication somewhere, but not a notable hypothesis. This is nothing to be with it being weak, nothing to do with multiple points of view (or cooperation, people can look at various talk pages and make their mind up about that. And nothing to do with POV. Unless we can find (plural) reliable sources discussing a coherent hypothesis that is obviously the subject of this article, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of reliable sources indicates the subject isn't notable. PhilKnight (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only 68 Google hits once "wikipedia" is removed. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - content dispute. Cut out the crap, add opposing views, and cross-reference it. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, if you remove the original research, you will be left with nothing. PhilKnight (talk) 17:38, 24 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playtime Is Over the Mixtape
- Playtime Is Over the Mixtape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable release by non-notable artist Somno (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Somno (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable album by a non-notable artist, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 05:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mixtapes are inherently non-notable. A mixtape by a redlinked artist doubly so. DarkAudit (talk) 13:34, 17 July 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. It must be stated, however, that many of the complaints raised about this list are ones that are better handled via diligent editing, not deletion. Shereth 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of controversial video games
- List of controversial video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Inherently PoV title, would probably be an indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Too far-reaching a scope for a list. Previous versions had other games that were removed, for what reason is not clear. It seems that any game that created controversy should be included. This could be anything from nudity (BMX XXX) to patent infringement (The Simpsons Road Rage) to God-knows-what-else. It is debated that Warrior (arcade game) is actually the first fighting game. Should this also be included? JohnnyMrNinja 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if a narrower scope was chosen, it could be kept. Maybe banned video games? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmanageable list with no exclusionary criteria and no obvious / workable criteria to frame this around. "Controversial video game" doesn't have a commonly accepted definition. (Does it?) Townlake (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete- the inclusion criterion is nebulous and reeks of POV-pushing. It's impossible for this to be objective and encyclopedic. Reyk YO! 05:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would include E.T. on this list, though I doubt others would. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: We have lots of potentially PoV lists (unusual deaths, famous gay/bi people etc.). I think this should be kept - it's interesting and it allows for navigability between similar items. The only thing I could say against it is that it is short and misses some very controversial, more modern, games. But that is a reason to expand, not delete. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rename to List of banned video games (compare with list of banned films), and source each entry. Lugnuts - Extra - I see that list already exists - merge in any useful content and the redirect. (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good idea... But what if they were controversial but not banned? Like that one with the boobs. Maybe that's how we can define the ambiguous meaning of controversial: not-banned. Nudity and copyright infringement (like JMN said) can all be included as we define only if there was some controversy involved with its release. Just because its going to be a long list doesn't mean it shouldn't exist... what do people think? --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article could definatly be expanded, by taking stuff from Template:Video_game_controversy, bringing the total up to 24 games in the list. The scope of the list, however, is outside of banned videogames since they were merely controversial rather than being removed from the shelves. --Sigma 7 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deal with as sigma suggests, --controversial games at Wikipedia almost by definition are games over which there has been a notable controversy. It can mean a number of specific things, which can be distinguished by explqanations in the list. DGG (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC),[reply]
- Comment - I could see lists like "banned video games", "video games with nudity", "video games labeled with parental warnings" and such because the criteria is very cut and dry. The list as stands, and even under these proposals, is too indiscriminate, and WP specifically bans that. I was half kidding about E.T., but I could argue that this game was as controversial as any other, considering it nearly brought down Atari (and likely contributed to its home video system demise) ... yet that is really not what is being discussed here. "Controversial" is too ill defined. I am completely with Townlake in wanting to hear an answer to the question. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree that the list is unmanageable and indiscriminate - either the game in question caused a stink or it didn't. Controversial and banned are separate things, though there is some overlap. Those interested in society's attitudes towards videogames would find this an invaluable tool, as far as what criteria could be applied it's pretty simple: sex, violence, religious outcry, racism, affects on children. That translates to: Custer's Revenge, Manhunt, Resident Evil 5, the hot chocolate thing etc. - all of which can be sourced. ET wouldn't count because it wasn't controversial, it was very poorly rated and is alleged to have been the cause of the video game crash. If he dismembered the milk man and raped Mickey Mouse during his falling-down-holes adventure it'd be different. Someoneanother 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- E.T. wasn't controversial? Tell that to the people who lost their jobs over it. It was very controversial: why would a company rush out a game that was so obviously not ready when so much financially was at stake? Proving something was controversial with sourcing gets to be very subjective. It is easy to say "use common sense", but what is obvious to one person is not so obvious to the next person. Your statement supports it ... it defines "controversial" as having to involve things like dismemberment and Mickey Mouse. Would Smash TV qualify? What about Gauntlet? What about a game whose controversy was more financial than content oriented? Controversy is not objective, and that's why this list becomes indiscriminate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — I have to agree with the main reasons behind a couple of people here. If a game garnered sufficient controversy to the point where it can be verifiably referenced, then it's fair game. A good analogy was made, I thought, with the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people; my guess that well over half the people on that list would not be notable if they were not LGBT. The presence of that controversy, in addition with the presence of verifiable information, makes subjects like these worthy in inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The controversy over E.T. can certainly be verifiably referenced. Same for the controversy over the "best video game of all time" and subquestions of that debate. Anyway, worth noting: the article version of this list currently exists at Video_game_controversy, and I suggest everyone take a peek. It looks like that one is a work in progress itself, and progress is indeed being made. Would be interested to hear people's thoughts. Townlake (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as Someone another pointed out, this wouldn't count (in their opinion). This demonstrates the point I am trying to make: "controversey", by its very nature, is subjective. Even with sources, it is subjective based on the choice of words of individual reporters, and their point of view. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (this was my unsigned comment, I think it got accidentally attributed to another editor).[reply]
- What I should have said is that the list as-is refers to public outcry about the content of video games, which is a much more specific. A disclaimer/introductory paragraph to that effect would force additions to the list to actually have references. Yes, that would leave some room for arguments, but that's the nature of the entire encyclopedia. In that context there are a lot of obvious candidates (the race-row over Resident Evil 5 for instance) from here stretching back and also into the future. As a chronological list that would be a useful research tool. One of the four games currently in the list (Death Race) is in a book in front of me - "...the arcade title Death Race holds a special place in the history of video games by being the first title to be widely criticsed for being too violent." Video game controversy is there to cover the subject collectively, not a stock-pot for every example to be thrown in. That's where the list comes in, and I believe it is manageable but needs to be defined as a 'moral outrage' or 'public outcry' list, not "I think that's quite controversial". Someoneanother 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and that's where the presence of verifiable sources (e.g. for Death Race) showing evidence of a moral panic or moral outcry come into play. It has to be the sources, not original research or speculation, that must show whether or not a controversy existed for a certain game or event. MuZemike (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I should have said is that the list as-is refers to public outcry about the content of video games, which is a much more specific. A disclaimer/introductory paragraph to that effect would force additions to the list to actually have references. Yes, that would leave some room for arguments, but that's the nature of the entire encyclopedia. In that context there are a lot of obvious candidates (the race-row over Resident Evil 5 for instance) from here stretching back and also into the future. As a chronological list that would be a useful research tool. One of the four games currently in the list (Death Race) is in a book in front of me - "...the arcade title Death Race holds a special place in the history of video games by being the first title to be widely criticsed for being too violent." Video game controversy is there to cover the subject collectively, not a stock-pot for every example to be thrown in. That's where the list comes in, and I believe it is manageable but needs to be defined as a 'moral outrage' or 'public outcry' list, not "I think that's quite controversial". Someoneanother 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as Someone another pointed out, this wouldn't count (in their opinion). This demonstrates the point I am trying to make: "controversey", by its very nature, is subjective. Even with sources, it is subjective based on the choice of words of individual reporters, and their point of view. LonelyBeacon (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (this was my unsigned comment, I think it got accidentally attributed to another editor).[reply]
- Nip it in the bud. I prefer to keep lists in hopes of cleaning them up, but this only has a few games so far and will rapidly become unmaintainable. We already have a V-D-E about video game controversies which has a section for game titles. Delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Can we move the article to something worded differently such as Controversy on Video games or something similar instead of deleting the whole thing altogether? MuZemike (talk) 08:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — Article has been flagged for rescue. MuZemike (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate-clear inclusion criteria, encyclopedic-video game controversy attracts encyclopedic/almanacic interst, maintanable-I'll keep it watchlisted and agree that only referenced games should be included in the list, notable-controversial is inherently notable, unoriginal-video game magazines cover controversial games, and verifiable-again video game magazines and even mainstream newspapers have covered particularly controversial games) and use this for possible expansion. I will begin that effort. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pumpkin King, forgive me, but I cannot think that one person requesting to take responsibility is reason to keep any article. Further, I am concerned because you suggested adding to this list from this, which is itself lacking in citations to verify inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I would realistically be the only one monitoring the page in question as I reckon the article creator and others would be willing to do so as well. The article provides a helpful complement to the video game controversy article and is also good as a navigational tool as well to these articles. That other list, while unsourced provides a means of articles to search for, i.e. tossing some of the names together in a Google searching and seeing if they are discussed together in the context of being controversial games. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pumpkin King, forgive me, but I cannot think that one person requesting to take responsibility is reason to keep any article. Further, I am concerned because you suggested adding to this list from this, which is itself lacking in citations to verify inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list is fine. Sourced, short and spare--if it is a real problem at this size it could be merged into the VG controversies article. there are also lists out there as sources listing "countdowns of controversial video games" so the concept isn't really OR (most of those are blogs that think they are edgy by mentioning Custer's revenge, but hey). Protonk (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sources that aren't blogs (because LGRdC got most of the blogs):
- I hope there is more .... only #5 addressed a video game by name (GTA:SAn Adnreas). Did you read the others? They were mostly abstracts to scholarly papers on the controversial video games. #1 was a scrap of paper that had the word "controversey" highlighted. This is exactly why I can't support keeping this article. All these sources seem to establish is that some video games are controversial. What I am talking about is providing reliable sources that demonstrate each game listed in controversial. We already know that some video games can rankle people's feathers. We've got an article for that. What I am talking about is: to support this list, I think there needs to be evidence supporting these particular games as controversial. I hear a lot of people saying "oh, there's sources", but after looking myself, and waiting, I have seen only the one that you have produced (and GTA:San Andreas isn't even on the list). I stand by that this list lacks WP:RS, and is inherently WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See these reliable sources for this discriminate list. Others include: [52], [53], [54], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...yes. I read the others. I also skimmed the papers whose abstracts I linked to. They are gated so I hope whoever would use them for inclusion in the article would just download the paper. I'm also guessing for the first link--I don't actually have a copy of that book in hand but I figure the redacted section (a section on this history of video game controversies) might be helpful. The reason it was a scrap of paper was because not all content is indexed and shown on google. Facts on File will show up at most local libraries, so all it takes is a trip to the reference section to suss out that source. #2 lists Death Race explicitly (scroll up). #3 list three games, in about the level of detail you would expect an "encyclopedia" to do so. #4 is a freaking treasure trove. It talks about leisure suit larry, Custer's revenge, tomb Raider, DOA beach volleyball. I won't go on to 5 and 6. You get my point. I've read the sources. The sources support the claims I made above. I don't see what the problem with them is. Protonk (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will publicly respond to Protonk: I did not mean to truly insinuate that you hadn't read these articles, it is more of a figure of speech. No incivility was intended. If it was taken, then I apologize. It appears that sources were added since I last checked. I still find the principle of this list indiscriminate. Now, I am going to take a Tea Break for a while. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Lists was poorly referenced above. A list must specify inclusion criteria. There is no clear inclusion criteria, list of banned video games already exists, there is no reason to keep this article because it serves no clear or useful function. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The inclusion criteria is fairly clear, i.e. games that have explicitly been described as "controversial". Besides, WP:USELESS is not a compelling reason for deletion. But to counter it, it serves as a discriminate and verifiable supplement to our article on Video game controversy and also as a navigational tool. Thus, there is no reason to delete the article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Banned video games are different from controversial video games in that controversial video games are not necessarily banned. MuZemike (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to give the contributors credit for the improvements that have been made to the article since this AfD began. That said, I do think there still need to be qualifiers on what sources result in listings here and what is excluded - the Craddock and Silverman sources do a great job of explaining the reasons the games listed are controversial, but the "Fecal Jesus" opinion piece is far more oriented toward why the games suck than why they're "controversial." (It even identifies the Michael Jackson game as "not at all controversial in its day.") Townlake (talk) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a POV magnet for sure. But if people can ground every single statement here with a reference to a reliable secondary source, then most of the problems will be addressed. The controversies should be in the opinion of RSS, rather than in the opinion of editors. If necessary, move/rename/split the page so that the measuring stick is more clear. Randomran (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've updated the page a bit. some of it was just cleanup, some of it was addition of references. The 5 links I showed above are
notnow included in the article. Unreferenced entries have been removed, as has the "Moonwalker" entry. I've also proposed a merger with video game controversy. As I see it, that article needs all the help it can get, and an ordered table like this might be able to do that. So I can take it or leave it. I'd rather the article be kept, but I want to see what the thoughts on a merger are. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Nice work, perhaps a short description for each entry as opposed to a simple 'sex' or 'violence' label would help readers as well as those adding games to the list. The other thing would be individually listing and citing games within controversial series. Rockstar's games would be the primary example, since the company uses controversy as part of its sales and promotion plan a timeline of the individual games would help on that level. Someoneanother 10:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking about that. I think splitting games up within series is a good idea. Since I view this list as a probable merge candidate to Video game controversy, I'm trying to keep it spare (presumably once merged, the "reason" section can include a section link to the game controversy in question). Thanks for the input! Protonk (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I see no inherent problem with such a list, although we should be sure that only games that have been definitively controversial are included. Everyking (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable subject, being on the list would require a source/reference for aforesaid controversy. 'nuff said. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I'm still wary of the inclusion criteria being too broad, but worth giving it a shot since so many editors have rallied to the cause. Townlake (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; the scope is narrowly and explicitly defined, the list is thoroughly sourced, and the topic of controversy in video games is highly notable (being the subject of national legislation, vast scholarly attention and newspaper inches for example). Move to close per WP:SNOWSkomorokh 16:22, 24 July 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 as a well written but obvious hoax. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Standbridge
- Standbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pennmarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(delete) – (View AfD) That there is a place in Dorset called Stanbridge seems accurate, as for the rest, a city-state? Wars and treaties with German towns? Laying claim to large areas of Dorset? A mercantile stormtrooper force? An extended hoax I think! Benea (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also nominating Pennmarth, which doesn't have any google hits apart from us, so seems to be even more clearly a hoax. Despite its noble history of skirmishes with other Dorset towns, and its fine collection of military epistles! Benea (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Image:Standbridge City Seal.jpg, which should also be deleted, as it is actually a poor photocopied version of a Russian coin with a bit of photoshopping, rather than a city seal. What tipped me off? The Russian doubleheaded eagle was one thing, but the fact the cyrillic actually reads '100 Roubles' and 'Bank of Russia' was the clincher. Benea (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – regretfully. I agree a hoax. It’s a shame, a talent wasted doing bad when it could do so much good. To the author, great work, but misdirected. I’m disappointed ShoesssS Talk 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 both as obvious hoaxes per nom. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 04:05, 17 July 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 00:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fire pit
- Fire pit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article should be merged into a more appropriate article, like bonfire or simple fire. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, lets delete this whole this altogether then. I change my nomination to straight up deletel. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep; this is not the place to merge articles. If you would like this to be merged, add the template {{merge|Bonfire}} at the top of the page.
- Keep notable, and not the same as a bonfire--historical significance. JJL (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I can pull references for this if necessary, but I'll cheerfully throw an IKNOWIT argument out here - I've built these a few times, they are often permanent structures and are distinct from fireplaces. I can work on better sourcing if necessary Thursday, but there's plenty to work with here. Townlake (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no rationale for deletion in the nomination. These exist, they are certainly notable as a class of structure, and sources could easily be found. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is clearly an encyclopedic topic that can be adequately sourced, if it isn't already. Suggest we speedy keep this under WP:SNOW. Reyk YO! 05:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I thought 'firepit' meant 'barbecue' - and it does! merge! --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable; barbecue is a range of styles for cooking meats, a barbecue is also similar to a cookout, historically fire pits have existed to keep fires contained and to serve as social gathering points, I would think that barbecue might fit in to a fire pit article describing one off shoot from fire pits but they are not at all synonomous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy.W.Ellis (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for other disruptive nominations by this same nominator, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America wherein I observed that they act just like banned user User:Wiki brah, recently editing as User:JeanLatore. Maybe the closing admin can look into this, since WP:SSP seems to be dysfunctionally backlogged lately.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has been indef blocked for being a sock of Wiki_brah.
Speedy Keep as disruptive nomination seems appropriate.Townlake (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has been indef blocked for being a sock of Wiki_brah.
- Keep Even a brief read of the article outlines clear differences between a fire pit and a barbeque. And unless I'm very much mistaken, barbeques haven't been around for such a long time. It's part of Wiki-Project Archaeology - not Wiki-Project Outdoor Cooked Meat. Is there such a project? Oldandfat (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This one seems like a no-brainer. AniMate 22:58, 21 July 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 - Page has been speedily deleted and salted. —[DeadEyeArrow – Talk – Contribs] 16:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dom Fera
- Dom Fera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article claims several thousand google hits for notability -- not at all clear all google hits are of the same person. No reliable sources supplied. Subject is a 16 year old film maker. I believe not notable, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. RayAYang (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This film maker deserves credit for what he does and desereves to be better known so I've made a page for him. Besides other people from youtube are on here so why not him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chosenagain (talk • contribs) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable person who fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: not notable --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Not notable, even as a Youtuber - possible autobio. MattieTK 09:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above Themfromspace (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A review of the article's history reveals problems regarding WP:COI and WP:SPA. Sorry, Dom. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Should have been speedied when so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete No notability assertions, obvious COI. Mycroft7 (talk) 14:38, 18 July 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 then redirect, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but seems to be an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Girard
- Jean Girard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bio of a secondary character who has appeared in just one film (Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby); with no sequel planned in the works, this article is very unlikely to grow significanty IRK!Leave me a note or two 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unlikely to pass WP:FICT as a character. No references to gainsay. --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Efface, no secondary sources = no article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Talladega Nights. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 20 July 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 and pay more attention. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carol Isler
- Carol Isler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible hoax. No refs. No ghits. Claim to notability is being the "mother of Chapoemicy". Can find no evidence that Chapeomicy is a real word/vocation. Can find no evidence that J. F. Byrnes University is a real school. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Joke article about a woman purported to be the chemist who chose the name for the crystalline solid phase of dihydrogen monoxide. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete; This article is obviously a joke. IRK!Leave me a note or two 02:58, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exploring the Paraguay River
- Exploring the Paraguay River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
We're not a travel guide, but this article sure is. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Paraguay River. The article is not a travel guide, but should be merged into the existing Paraguay River rather than deleted. This nomination is incomplete. There is no AfD tag on the article and the article's creator has not been notified. --Eastmain (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It's been proposed for merging with Paraguay River, but once all the travel agent talk is cut out there'll be nothing left. I've given the Wikitravel people a heads up so they can see if there's anything they want to salvage. Reyk YO! 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well written article good enough as a stand alone. Homotlfqa83 (talk) 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a travel guide - Wikitravel is though. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If not deleted, it should be merged to Paraguay River. Tosqueira (talk) 05:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not a bad essay, but no place for it here. Meets WP:NOT PAPERS. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:41, 17 July 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. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AC+79 3888
- AC+79 3888 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a completely unremarkable star whose only claim to fame is that Voyager 1 will pass somewhere near it in a few million years, and that's already mentioned in the Voyager 1 article. Reyk YO! 02:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdraw Nomination- I am hereby withdrawing the nomination for this article because consensus is clearly to keep it. But I do think that a notability criterion for stars will be necessary sooner or later- statements like "all stars are automatically notable" need to be discussed because a lot of people (myself included) would say that it just ain't so. Reyk YO! 03:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am inclined to say that all stars are notable for the same reasons as other automatically notable subjects. The article already has two references. I am not sure where an astronomer would look up information about this star, but that source should also be listed as a reference for this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Is there a policy about "automatically notable subjects", and do stars fall under it? Given that the galaxy contains something like 300 billion stars (that's 50 stars per human being) I don't see how stars can be automatically notable. This one doesn't have any remarkable properties, it's only distinguished because of Voyager 1, and it should not inherit notability any more than articles about people should. Reyk YO! 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One is loathe to say that stars are not notable. But I recognize the nominator's point -- at some point, somebody's going to have to create notability guidelines for stars. After all, there are trillions of them (and we discover more with every passing day). We could easily bury Wikipedia under a ton of star stubs. RayAYang (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it is just barely outside our list of nearest stars, and likely to become at some point one of the very nearest stars to us. I think tracking these "sungrazers" is worthwhile. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm looking for a definitive source, but it's amazing how many times this anecdote, if you will, appears in both serious and recreational literature (such as Sagan's novel Contact (novel)). It is apparently believed to be, barring improvements in technology, the first star encountered this closely by a manmade object.
- Keep - I certainly agree with Reyk; stars are not automatically notable. However, given that this star will be the first one with which an object created by our species will rendezvous, I think that confers an unique notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I tend to think that anything so gigantic ought to be notable. Seriously, as space exploration increases in sophistication and reach, this star will be one of those frequently considered by astronomers. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the voyager rendevous makes it notable. 58.166.91.48 (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is notable as one (#57) of the 100 nearest known star systems to the solar system, apart from the Voyager connection. Spacepotato (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - All stars within 20 light years should have virtually automatic notability due to value in stargazing, planet finding efforts, and future space exploration, in my opinion. But the fact that this could be one of the first stars a human craft approaches is icing on the cake. And now, I shall boldly go... :) Okiefromokla questions? 02:23, 18 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shoop Da Whoop
- Shoop Da Whoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In my opinion, this alleged meme is not notable, or if it is, the article fails to demonstrate notability clearly. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologismHAHAHHA, DISREGARD THAT I SUCK C--nahhhh....Too self referential. Delete as neologism that hasn't been received in independent media. Unlike Lolcat, another 4chan creation, this one will probably never make it out of the forum world. Just imagine the talking heads on CNN trying to pronounce it as they navigate 4chan on their GIANT internet screen. "Sho---da....Shot da what? OMG, is that someone holding open their own------". :) Protonk (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I will simply vote for delete for failing WP:RS and hope Protonk feels better later on. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: Come on, this belongs on Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Carbonrodney (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Ockdeleteapus BLAAAAAAAAA Sorry, but no. JuJube (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fire mah lazer and delete it. No reliable sources anywhere, just a stupid ED meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Save because other useless Internet memes have their own page, and this one has a racial component that one can't ignore. Cueball (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A delete is fine too because this is the only meme that I can think of Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we are not a collection of everything. Chillum 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent with a far-more bothersome meme that got its own page. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article doesn't establish any sort of encyclopedic value/potential. I think I've seen this phrase used once, in The Impossible Quiz. As far as I can tell, not notable.--KojiDude (C) 21:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SageDelete: It must be summer. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 21:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- In ur wiki, deleting ur meme: especially since it doesn't establish notability or widespread usage. —C.Fred (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable internet meme --Boss Big (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Shoop da Whoop is plain awesome as well as famous. 68.192.12.173 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument isn't. -Jéské (v^_^v Mrrph-mph!) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe it meets the criteria for notability, but the article could be cleaned up and expanded a bit. Themfromspace (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Did your search turn up reliable sources to support that notability? I couldn't find any, but if you did, I'd change my nomination- I'd hate to delete an article on a notable subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:03, 21 July 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 that the article has been speedily deleted by User:Ben W Bell. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
McDonalds lawsuit 1964
- McDonalds lawsuit 1964 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable lawsuit, or even that it happened. I tried a few different combinations of terms while searching google and could not find any writing about this case; the author has not been able to add detail or sources that would confirm the accuracy of this short article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's not enough detail here to try to verify it, and no sources are provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Not one source. Radioinfoguy (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed DELETE - per WP:RS, per WP:N, per WP:V, per WP:ARRGGH. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find anything to suggest that the single sentence article in question isn't complete crap. --Carbonrodney (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not going to speedy it because I'm going to assume good faith. However, the author had better come up with something good real soon. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being from Kentucky, I vaguely recall hearing tales about this, but there's not enough information here for anyone to expand the article unless they know more of the details than appear in the article. The event is probably notable, and the article could definitely be recreated, but hopefully in a much more useful and expandable form. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:01, 18 July 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, due to the lack of reliable sources for notability and verifiability. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albophobia
- Albophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is incomplete and lacks any coverage from reliable sources. It may be a single person's POV. Moreover, the issue of racism is already covered in the racism article and is better sourced there with numerous references and footnotes. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT for other less well known forms of racism. Artene50 (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If you read the previous AFDs, you will see that this is actually the beginning of a translation from the French Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as with the previous 2 efforts, someone started to translate the article and then stopped. I'm also uncertain whether the article would come up to muster if it was all translated; it seems to apply more to France than to the world in general (the term "albophobia" is rarely used and not as clearly defined in English, for instance.) Brianyoumans (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this article was deleted before, then why was it brought back? This article is POV, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary for made-up words (note: I never heard of that word, I don't know about all of you). Lehoiberri (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable, made-up term with no sources to back it up. Maybe salt it too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 20:17, 17 July 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. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rasu Baptist Church
- Rasu Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local church. Was PRODed, but has already been deleted through PROD before. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most individual churches are non-notable based on the standards of WP:ORG. This particular one seems to garner no Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. No evidence of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fourteen year old church with forty members. No Google-hits, no reliable sources. And it looks like WP:OR to boot. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 07:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probably a nice place with good people, but Wikipedia is not a church directory. There are many notable churches in the world, but this one does not seem to be one of them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 17 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting For Ophelia
- Waiting For Ophelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Movie listed at IMBD as being in production, but no major actors, so we should wait for the actual release before creating an article on this. For the time being, delete. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even though IMDb lists this as being in post-production, a google search yields relatively few hits, and no sources to indicate notability. PC78 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 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 -Djsasso (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ColorPic
- ColorPic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Software with no asserted notability. Delete. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A7 Probably G11 too as advertising, but no notability. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:50, 17 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
California flaming faggot
- California flaming faggot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a non-notable publication for which the only sources I could find are blogs and similarly unreliable references. The person apparently responsible for the publication is similarly non-notable. Pinkville (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the only link provided doesn't appear to list the publication anyway... Pinkville (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability and a search on Google suggests non-notability. No reason the article shouldn't be recreated if the magazine gains a reasonable profile. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even an assertion of notability, as far as I can see. -- Hoary (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability, no independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - short-lived non-notable magazine. If no 3rd party sources have discussed it by now (per Googling), they never will.Yobmod (talk) 12:15, 22 July 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 Snow delete, yes it's early but these could have been bundled and as the main AfD makes clear, this is the consenus for these stations. No prejudice against re-creation when/if these stations become a reality or begin construction.. TravellingCari 14:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Newington railway station, Sydney
- Newington railway station, Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
States no sources, nothing found online nor on the New South Wales Governement site. Non-existent station. There are no official nor any other sources indicating that such station is even proposed or planned for construction. Pikablu0530 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this article contains very little actual content (massive amounts of question marks don't count), and all ghits for "Newington Railway Station" I can find are about unrelated stations in Britain. Reyk YO! 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a proposed future station on a railway line that is as yet a concept only. The article fails the notability guidelines requiring non-trivial coverage in relibale secondary sources. There is also an element of the crystal-ball here - an overused argument in deletion discussions but relevant in this case. This article would be justifed only when funding has been found for the Metro, its route determined and actual planning for station locations commenced. Euryalus (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete all - I'm in favour of keeping railway stations, but this is just pure speculation. Whether the line will even be built, let alone its route, is still up in the air. It is not like the North West Metro which is much more planned and the stations are almost definite if the line proposal goes ahead. These should be deleted and the user censored - I believe they are working on an unregistered user name and adding spurious additions like this elsewhere - I have had to clean a lot of it up lately. JRG (talk) 13:17, 17 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James Michael Gomez
- James Michael Gomez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject of this article is non-notable and I have been unable to find any verifiable sources to support it. Remarkably, the article includes this passage, under the overblown heading, Controversy: His rather outspoken, sometimes unfounded comments on other photographers, directors, and artists, as well as his public airing of his private life could be considered career-breaking, or at least a hindrance this early on in his career [my emphasis]. Even more remarkably, in the sentence that follows its author resorts to the absence of material as evidence of notability: some websites, including buzznet.com were edited to completely remove his concluding interview in its entirety. The "external link" provided is a personal blog, and of the four "references" provided, three do not mention his name and the other one is (again) buzznet, hardly meritorious. Let's drop this absurdity. Pinkville (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- This guy is really, really unnotable, the article is self promotion so blatant it borders on being a prod. Reyk YO! 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a stub still, its not finished. You don't even know who he is, search ace michaels. same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.99.16 (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- watch the damn video on James St. James daily freak show see why he was cut out and see who he is. he comes in at around 6 mins, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.99.16 (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I quote from the page that I think is meant: The Daily Freak Show is a new daily show featuring James St James and certain friends set loose on the town! covering a variety of stuff. Check it out now and tune in to the WOW Report every day to see a fresh installment. So fresh, in fact, you'll want to slap its face. This sounds profoundly unnnotable to me. Should I really go to trouble of downloading and installing some plug-in just to see this? Hm, I am interested in photography, and I could be persuaded to do all this for insights into another Cartier-Bresson or another Nachtwey. Let's see what photographic wonders are in store. The work stars various people I've never heard of, sixth or seventh among whom is masochist porn actor James Michael Gomez. "Masochist porn actor"? What happened to the photography? But I might still manage to work up some infinitesimal interest, possibly. Let's see, how long was this? -- Running Time: 06:46. So in the last 46 seconds or so of this very obscure video, a masochist porn actor appears to tell the world who he is and why he'll later be cut out. Uh, no, can't be bothered. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please delete this unsubstantiatable, non-notable mess. TheMindsEye (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of course - completely non-notable subject making a self-advertising article.Yobmod (talk) 12:17, 22 July 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 03:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Vishnu Tirtha
- Swami Vishnu Tirtha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
-Bio of a religious leader that is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plentiful sources: [55] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - many sources and subject cited and quoted in the Siddha Yoga article. -Vritti (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per jossi and Vritti. ~ priyanath talk 15:15, 19 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa M. Wolfe
- Lisa M. Wolfe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable yoga instructor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this person has a decent publication history, but with small publishers/magazines that anybody could get published by. She does not qualify as a notable academic. Nothing wrong with that, but there are probably a thousand other yoga instructors who are just as noteable. The principal author of the page is Wolfeppt. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Further checking shows that at least some of these publishers are print-on-demand publishing houses having author fees to publish, i.e. vanity presses, (see e.g. the "publish your book now" button on the Equilibrium Books website, which "published" her book 'Off The Wall- Exercise for Climbers'). Bordering on advertising, the article also lists individual appearances at non-notable events, offers a lengthy list of unverified interviews in obscure specialty magazines (e.g. typing "wolfe" in the "Hour Detroit" magazine search box returned no hits on the subject). The article tries very hard to manufacture a notability where, unfortunately, none exists.Agricola44 (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to establish whether those publishers were vanity presses. Thanks for finding the appropriate info, Agricola. Given that they're vanity presses, those publications do not count toward notability at all. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:47, 18 July 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. No consensus to delete. It seems the subject is notable as per the sources found in google books. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tirtha and Kshetra
- Tirtha and Kshetra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possible original research. Together these two terms do not equal notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google books, as always, is your friend. [56]. In essence, the article is about hindu places of pilgrimage, dividing them into two types. Renaming might be possible, but of course, sources are abundant, as can be seen by searching on each term individually, or with "pilgrimage". The article already cited one source; I added a couple to further reading. As far as I can tell, this is the most extensive or only article we have on pilgrimage in Hinduism as a concept, rather than covering particular places or routes, or as part of Pilgrimage in general. Deletion would thus be absurd.John Z (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per John Z. What bothers me is the continuous listing of AfDs by the nom (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Hinduism) many of which can be sourced by a simple round trip to Google books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Tirtha, kshetra are significant terms to describe Hindu pilgrimage places. The compound word Tirthakshetra is also used. I am surprised how such a significant word can be listed for deletion. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am aware that tirtha is a notable term. Though equally important, so is the term Kshetra. This article tried to create a new term by anding the the word "and" between two notable terms. While there are two notable terms here, the article, as I came across it, was a medium for original research. While two good artiles could be written about these two subjects, as is, this article still borders on original research. I am open to any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For association of tirtha with kshetra, and term tirthakshetra see[57]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- tirthakshetra@Gbooks — goethean ॐ 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For association of tirtha with kshetra, and term tirthakshetra see[57]--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am aware that tirtha is a notable term. Though equally important, so is the term Kshetra. This article tried to create a new term by anding the the word "and" between two notable terms. While there are two notable terms here, the article, as I came across it, was a medium for original research. While two good artiles could be written about these two subjects, as is, this article still borders on original research. I am open to any comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Redtigerxyx. — goethean ॐ 16:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or sensitively done merge of article into Tirtha, and move of some material into Kshetra. ~ priyanath talk 15:27, 19 July 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 is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MAP magazine artist professionals
- MAP magazine artist professionals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable publication. According to its website, the first issue will appear in September, and it will be distributed for free in the railway station of one city, Winterthur, by the city's tourism agency. Apparently not much more than a promotional vehicle for artists local to Winterthur. No media coverage that I can find. The two articles from a local paper that are cited do not discuss or even mention the magazine. Sandstein 07:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - agree with nominator, not notable, insufficient independent sources -Hunting dog (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: advertising for not noteworthy magazine. the links in references are broken. --Carbonrodney (talk) 08:06, 17 July 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.