The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 at this time. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable winery. Tagged for notability months ago. Tag was removed, and a reference to Wines & Vines was added. However, a profile written up in Wines & Vines does not confer notability; it's just a profile that says nothing special about the winery that couldn't also apply to hundreds of other non-notable start-ups. Article prod removed, now going to AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator regarding WP:CORP: The crux of the issue involves a single article in a trade magazine about the subject winery. WP:CORP specifically requires sources (plural), not a single source. Also, trade magazines tend to lack sufficient independence of the subject because they depend on the organizations they cover for support. Therefore, "keep" arguments err when they rely on a single quasi-independent source as sufficient to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I consider the article being relied on for notability an example of public relations, not independent journalism. DGG (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nomination sums it up best - CL — 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. The nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the notability guideline. Wines & Vines is a magazine and a reliable source, and the article from Wines & Vines establishes notability. Moreover, http://www.winesandvines.com/search/?q=Roloson&x=0&y=0 shows some other articles which mention this winery. --Eastmain (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see another reference, but that Sunset reference looks like it's reproducing somebody's wine blog. The information in it is so scant that it's hardly useful. The other references are primary-source from the winery itself; they don't count. Wines & Vines profiles wineries. That's part of their content. The existence of a profile doesn't confer notability. Did you read that write-up? It didn't even describe anything particular about the winery that makes it notable. Not the wines, not anything. It's practically boilerplate; that article could apply to hundreds of other non-notable wineries if you search-and-replace the name of the winery and make other minor edits. It's like the magazine picked somebody at random to do a profile on. Heck, my own family's winery was profiled in a magazine, but I'm sure not going to insist that an article be written about it. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepWines & Vines certainly isn't as notable a source as The New York Times, but it seems like a legitimate magazine, and the article is solely about the winery. If someone can convince me otherwise, then I will change my vote. - Merzbow (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per clarification on WP:CORP talk page. The other source from Sunset Magazine is one paragraph in a wine-pairing column, so insufficient. - Merzbow (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Wines & Vines article bears a byline ("by Larry Walker") which would not be the case if the article consisted only of a reprinted press release. The byline seems to me to mean that the article should be considered independent of the subject. --Eastmain (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That point isn't in dispute, and isn't a rationale in my nomination. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the byline proves indendence. I go rather by the nature of the account, which ends with a considerable section listing some of their wines and their prices. Trade magazine stories can be hard to deal with, but I look for some indication of more than rewriting what the subject said about himself. DGG (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wineries are like resorts and hotels, they are just as notable, have long standing histories, thousands or millions of visitors, encompass very large tracts of land, make millions of dollars, and sell their own brands of products, much more important than say a high school, we have room for them.MY♥INchile 02:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, look at this AfD again.... This particular winery is a small start-up. It doesn't have any of the qualities you mention. Furthermore WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason to keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain I feel that sufficient notability has been established. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, on what basis has Eastman's comment established sufficient notability? One article in a trade magazine still fails WP:CORP. We need multiple sources, not one. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N seems satisfied, even if "only just, by the skin of the grape". :P Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems to win awards. Wines and Vines is exactly the sort of thing notability is about - a trade publication decides to write a feature on the business, thus the industry believes it is worth noting. I added a couple mentions in reliable sources, both for the same proposition, which is that they're using the controversial Enologix system to produce award-worthy (not necessarily good but award winning) wines. The Times article is just a passing mention but the New York Times article gives it several paragraphs in a long article, somewhere more than trivial but less than substantial. Anyway, there are multiple independent sources and it seems to be a solid winery. There are a couple dozen other wineries that should have articles before this one but on the rule of thumb I've found that perhaps 1/3 of all the wineries in Napa and Sonoma are notable, this is somewhere near the border. Wikidemo (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - there isn't sufficient sources to pass the notability bar for me. There is the piece in the trade press, but the rest are passing mentions. The Times piece uses tham as an example, but really isn't about them. And there's not much else beyond that. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn, article kept per consensus and statement from nominator. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability evident. Notability tag placed months ago, no change. Tag was removed. Article prodded. Prod removed. This article contains information that isn't substantially different from the back-stories of hundreds of other non-notable vineyards or wineries. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are sufficient to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the articles I added, two solely about this vineyard's innovative farming practices, the other partially about it, are sufficient. - Merzbow (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one seems to be notable. The refs. are more than press releases, & it was featured on the cover of a relevant trade magazine. DGG (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since when do external links in an article make the subject notable? The content of this article says nothing to assert notability. What content in those external links makes it notable? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The exact wording of WP:CORP is this: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." There's no requirement that the article text need assert something "special" about the subject, although the article should of course be comprehensive and NPOV. - Merzbow (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wineries are like resorts and hotels, they are just as notable, have long standing histories, thousands or millions of visitors, encompass very large tracts of land, make millions of dollars, and sell their own brands of products, much more important than say a high school, we have room for themMY♥INchile 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You used the exact same argument on another AfD. The article subject does not share the qualities you mention. The fact that other garbage exists on Wikipedia isn't a reason to keep this article. Each article should stand on its own merits. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources independent of the subject exist and are substantial enough to establish notability. Additional non-independent sources are adequate for expanding article with non-controversial details. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - while I disagree that this organization has anything notable enough to distinguish itself from thousands of others like it, and therefore doesn't warrant an article, I am now convinced that the article could be expanded to be acceptable. Therefore, I wish to withdraw this nomination (but I don't know how). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable band. In Google search, I found only a couple of trivial mentions. No evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. BRMo (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a single mention in Factiva, which suggests they're completely non-notable, but does the band meet WP:MUSIC in that it "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"? Two members (Seth Horan and Ed Toth) went on to join three notable bands (Vertical Horizon, Darwin's Waiting Room and The Doobie Brothers). Somno (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep , as per above. It appears that, at minimum, Toth and Horan are, indeed, notable, without question. It also appears that another member Lazaro Lazo has been shown to be notable. It would appear that this band almost certainly meets the WP Music standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.220.253 (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So let me get this straight; The only reason this band is notable is because some of the members went on to form a more notable band?Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YES. Why dont you have a try looking into WP MUSIC notability standards? --70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So, it seems that technically the band is notable according to WP:MUSIC. However, the band itself didn't do much that was notable, and the article cites NO sources. Once sources are added I will change by vote. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second, thought, I'm keeping my vote as "delete" for now. A Google search for the term "Jennifer Culture" provides only 825 results, few of which are for the band. When the search is narrowed down to ""Jennifer Culture" Band", there are only 164 results. Also, if you were to read the portion of WP:MUSIC that you were citing more closely, you would see that it says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.". It is clear that the band is not notable enough for it's own article, and that the best course of option would be to redirect to Vertical Horizon and merge any useful content there. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually look into the history of both bands, that would only confuse matters. The reason being, is that both bands previously existed separately from each other and of their own accord. Yes, both Horan and Toth were later in Vertical Horizon, but they joined at different times. In other words, VH was NOT a spinoff band, per se, of JC. The only way for this to be clearly explained, is by having the two pages continue to separately exist (as it is now), just as the bands were separately existing. I really believe that, when in doubt, error must be made on the side that WP exists to make subjects (and their histories) MORE easily understood, as opposed to the opposite.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that the band still just isn't notable enough for their own page. It doesn't matter if they didn't join the band at the same time. All the information about who joined and when could be incorporated into the "history" section of the Vertical Horizion page. It doesn't have to be a spin-off band to be re-directed. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be counter to the common sense clause in WP MUSIC. Again, I defer to my previous statement. The purpose of WP is NOT to confuse matters.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be counter to the common-sense clause? Also, I fail to see how making the page a redirect would confuse matters. The purpose of Wikipedia is also not to have useless pages for non-notable subjects if avoidable. This page will likely not grow beyond a stub, so it seems obvious to me that the usable information contained therein should be merged into the article of the band with which they are most closely associated, being Vertical Horizon. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely absurd, on so many levels. I don't know where to even start. The main point is that you even admitted yourself that they ARE notable. (As if we need your vote, one way or another.) WP MUSIC is very clear. You are going to have a TON of people very upset with you, if they are merged. (Plus, most of WP is stubs.) I again defer to my previous comments. (I'm done..over and out.) Have a good one.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply calling my arguments absurd is not an argument in itself. You still have not responded to why making the page a re-direct would be confusing or counter to wikipedia's Common Sense clause. I don't care if a "ton of people are upset with me", because the band has not been shown to be notable, and no amount of disgruntled Wikipedia users can change that. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the following, since you asked (and then I need a break from WP for a while): It would be like merging Canada, the US and Mexico together. After all, they ARE all in North America, right? So, let's do that. It makes the same amount of sense.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC):[reply]
That's hardly the same thing. For instance, take a look at the page for The Get Up Kids. The article begins with a summation of some of the earlier bands that the band members were in, giving the reader a good introduction to the band's origins without making a new page for a non-notable band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for proving my point, this last one really takes the cake. I really should just stop, because you are pretty much just taking care of my argument for me, all by yourself. OK, first of all, it appears that the Get Up Kids are just BARELY notable themselves. Secondly, it appears they have had several spinoff bands (none of which appears to be notable, on its own) and EACH of these bands has its own SEPARATE and relatively lengthy entry.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you hit the nail on the head. Jennifer Culture was NOT an earlier band OF Vertical Horizon, in that, they had nothing, at all, to do with each other for the first several years of each of them. It does make sense for the Get Up Kids, however, because that band was, apparently, a direct spinoff band of a previously existing band...and then the Kids had their own spinoff bands..etc etc. It is kind of like a timeline. I see that. But, the history of JC and VH is not like that, at all, which is why it does not make sense in this case. I really don't care, though, as it is no skin off of my nose. If it is merged, you will have, likely hundreds, if not thousands, of VH fans (and maybe a few JC fans) take to the streets and then take over WP. I, personally, will have nothing more to do with any of this, in any way, whatsoever. I wash my hands of it entirely. But, my logic, votes, comments, views, opinions and research results all remain the same.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your message on my temporary talk page. I'm not turned off of WP, but I am turned off, a bit, by some aspects of all the red tape, some of which I believe actually serves to lessen the quality of WP. But, that is a discussion for another time and place. But, in any event, I appreciate your offer and I just may take you up on that. So, no hard feelings. I know that none of this is personal, on either end. It's just a debate; one which will hopefully serve its intended purpose, in the end. Thanks again..and take care. I'm sure I will pop up again at some point. :) --70.156.170.194 (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good to hear you aren't turned off on the whole ordeal. However, how are The Get Up Kids not notable? They've had multiple world tours with the likes of Weezer and Green Day, their second album singlehandedly made Vagrant Records the label it is today, and they were at the forefront of the second-wave midwestern emo-punk scene in the mid 90's. I only ask so I can get an idea of what you see as notable for a band, so that you might have some future reference. And no, The Get Up Kids were not a spin-off band of any band. Two of the members were in a band called Kingpin, one was in a band called Secret Decoder Ring, another was in Coalesce, and another wasn't even in a band at all, so it puts it more on the level of Vertical Horizon than you think. Likewise, if you do not feel the information belongs on the Vertical Horizon page, then why not on the pages of the band members themselves? That feels like it would be a more apt solution considering your objections. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I will have to agree with you regarding TGUKs' notability.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rwiggum...whats up?! I thought we had made nice...why are you slammin all of my boys now??? Even though most everything Ive contributed to in WP music is getting slammed, I still stand by THAT THIS BAND IS CLEARLY NOTABLE AND DOES IN FACT MEET WP MUSIC STANDARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS A FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You FREAKIN people!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE THE F##K UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.170.194 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WPBandC6 makes it COMPLETELY CLEAR that this band IS NOTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have to question...what the hell is wrong with you people??!! Are you having touble with ESOL classes??? GRADUATE that first and THEN come back to WP!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.156.170.194 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BAND#C6 makes it clear that "common sense exceptions" to the policy are explicitly defined, and this band is completely non-notable otherwise. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A small pressure group, Google shows some passing mentions (which matches the passing mentions used as sources) but this does not appear to have been the primary subject of coverage in reliable independent sources - most of the (few) sources which do exist out there are very unreliable. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If what the article says is true they are notable enough. Being a "pressure group", no matter how wildly "politically incorrect", is not a reason to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't say it was. I said the lack of non-trivial independent sources was the reason to delete. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the non-trivial coverage to the article. Guy (Help!) 07:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the following sources to the ext. links section for later development of the article, which could certainly stand to be improved. I'm just not interested enough to do the improving. I am interested enough to argue that the organization is notable enough to have been covered non-trivially in independent sources. DickClarkMises (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (EDIT CONFLICT) External links aren't all of the best quality, but there is enough to demonstrate notability. There are also quite a few relevant hits on g-news, g-books, and g-scholar. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are sufficient enough, since this tag was added more sourced have been put up. - Schrandit (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article establishes notability. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete vandalism. Pegasus«C¦T» 04:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short version: The most charitable explanation for this article is that it was written by a newbie who did not know he was duplicating an existing article, Hagere Mariam. A far less kind explanation is that this is proof one should not edit Wikipedia while stoned or intoxicated.
The long version: I stumbled across this article entirely by accident, & wasted an hour trying to find a way to salvage it. None of my usual sources -- the CSA of Ethiopia, the Nordic Africa Institute -- can confirm that this settlement exists. "Bule Hora" may be an alternative name of another town in Ethiopia -- Hagere Mariam -- but what details in this article I can compare against the existing article clearly show that the original creator did his research by making up stuff as he went along. (Some of the passages -- for example "Among this number about 54.5 percent were females and the rest 55.5 percent were males. This warns concerned bodies that they must try their best to generate more employment for women than for men in order to decrease urban poverty and social issues" -- had to be intended as a joke!) And there is the issue that 3 of the 4 external links are to South African websites, not to any that contain information on Ethiopia! I honestly am not sure if this is just a hoax article, or a sincere contribution that is garbled far beyond the usual expectations. -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 31 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.
CommentBut he ISN'T particularly notable. The only bands that he has been in with wikipedia pages are both nominated for deletion. Besides, Lazo doesn't have anything notable enough that I can see to transfer notability to the band. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lazo is non-notable, and currently under AFD. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with the above. I believe that Lazo (and his bands) ARE notable.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above reasons. --Fsl dude (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Rwiggum clearly has little knowledge of WP notability standards.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, I think that you're the one with a poor understanding of Wikipedia's notability standards. Lazo's article's only assertion of notability is that he has been in bands with notable people. According to WP:PEOPLE, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" More information on this can be found Here. Also, according to WP:MUSIC, "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." Clearly, this is also a criterion that Mr. Lazo does not meet. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, for the most part, you have proven my point. (But, is this discussion about Lazo, or Audio Disturbances?)--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, considering that the primary argument for keeping this article is that Lazo is notable, then the fact that Lazo is, in fact, NOT notable is rather apropo to the discussion. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Sheryl Crow said, "It's apropo of nothing...". Not only has Lazo been shown to be notable, but Google searches will show that Schweizer and Alexandrakis are also quite notable. I really have to believe that, if at least 75% of the members of a band are notable (even if just barely), then the band, in question, IS notable. (WP MUSIC says so.) It's clear and is an "open/shut" case, as far as I can see. I really can't see how you would believe otherwise. It is only being counterproductive...towards me, yourself, this band, its members and WP, itself.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WHEN was Lazo shown to be notable? You keep saying that he has been "shown to be notable", but you've never said why. Also, a google search for "Eric Alezandrakis" provides very little notable content. Most of the results are self-published resources or lyrics sites. I was unable to find any reliable articles on him. Also, remember that Number of Google hits" is not a valid argument for or against an article's existence. Also, Please stop responding to your own contributions. AfD proceedings are not a pure vote, so adding responses and additional votes to your own posts will not help your cause. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have proven my point. Why are you even commenting on music related entries? What qualifies you? Educate yourself first. Please don't F##k up WP for the rest of us. I am sorry if this offends you. I don't mean it that way, but don't you have other things you could be doing (on WP, or elsewhere) which would be constructive?--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're even reading my entries. How am I proving your point? You are simply stating unverified claims and expecting them to stand as arguments. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep, but only once someone can provide reliable sources in order to verify why the band is notable. Until then, my vote remains. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry. I'm done. This is absurd.--70.156.170.194 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Common sense exceptions" to WP:MUSIC#C6 are explicitly defined in the policy, and this band is completely non-notable otherwise. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence provided in article - or found by searching web that content is even Verifiable, let alone notable -Hunting dog (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was - No Consensus. If this returns to AfD I would strongly encourage participants to write more than [[WP:ACRONYM]]. - Peripitus(Talk) 12:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate, far from complete list. Tagged for cleanup with rationale of "it lacks a clear purpose" since December 2007 with no improvement whatsoever. Note also that there is no corresponding List of brothers; if there were, it would have the same problems with lack of focus and sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Before commenting, it helps to look at the article. This is not an indiscriminate list, intended to contain all sisters n the world, nor even one forall sisters who hapn to b for some reason together or separately notable at Wikipedia. It is a list of notable women with articles wheich are eithr known spcifically as sisters (such as sister acts in entertianmnt) or have such obvious and much-discussed relatioships as the Bronté sisters. It's a small list, and will get larger to the extent other people do the work to identify more such pairs. Objections to items can be as usual raised on the talk page. As most of the relevant people will be in popular entertainment, which is not my field, I am reluctant to be the one to create the equally appropriate List of brothers. DGG (talk) 00:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did look at the article. I doubt it could ever be complete, even if it is just for notable sisters - CL — 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere have been many entertainers and performers on stage, film and television, either biological or not, known as "Sisters." Others, just as famous, shone in literature and dance. Still other sisters are noted athletically. This does not look like the makings of an encyclopedic article. JuJube (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there seems to be no criteria for adding sisters - for example, I don't think Zooey Deschanel and Emily Deschanel are "known spcifically[sic] as sisters" or have "obvious and much-discussed relatioships"[sic]. I think Category:Sibling duos adequately covers the sisters who worked as a duo. Somno (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Brontés and Andrews sisters were threesomes. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see the point of an article listing "entertainers and performers on stage, film and television, either biological or not, known as 'Sisters.'" such as the McGuire Sisters and the The Lennon Sisters. I would limit the article to these, and not mix in persons individually known who also happen to have notable sisters, when they are not known professionally as "The --- Sisters," such as Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, who I have never heard of performing as "The Spears Sisters." As an alternative, a category of "sister groups" could be created (regardless of whether they are biologically sisters. Genetic tests are rarely published to prove that "biological" sisters really are, anyway).Edison (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is better as a category. The category "sibling duos" could be changed to include more than two, or a super-category could be created. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This would be an acceptable topic, given that there are certain groups of sisters who are notable individually and as sisters, from the Brontes to Abby and Ann Landers to Mary Kate and Ashley. Sadly, in the last two years it's never been more than an indiscriminate list, and I can't say that I'll be too broken up if this article is deleted. However, it is notable when siblings achieve fame, sometimes independently of each other, sometimes as a team, sometimes when one rides the coattails of the other, and a well-written list would be encyclopedic. Mandsford (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdraw. The easiest solution to this is to redirect the page to Freshly Squeezed, the programme for which this presenter is most noted. Anyone entering a search for this name can be directed to that article.
I nominated this after it was PRODded for deletion in order to generate some discussion on the topic. Please see below for further details TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel some history is required here. I created this article on 31/07/2008 which was quickly nominated for speedy deletion by User:Andyjsmith. User:NawlinWiki declined the speedy deletion on the grounds that the article asserts notability. AndyJSmith then PRODded the article for deletion giving the reason "One of many hundreds of minor UK TV presenters - no assertion of notability, no references". A Google Search generates several hits for this presenter (see here), but no reliable references. I also notice previous pages titled "Sarah Hendy" have been speedily deleted, but these don't appear to be about this subject or were deleted due to copyvio issues, which was why I created the page. Though I created this article, I won't lose any sleep whatever the outcome of this debate, but given the difference of opinion, I feel some discussion on the issue is probably appropriate. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect with a slight leaning towards redirect. Minor TV presenters are 10 a penny. I can't find any serious third party coverage of this person, just lots of idiots drooling about how sexy she is. andy (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having had time to reflect on this I think I'll withdraw the debate and redirect the page to Freshly Squeezed. This appears to be the thing she is most noted for so I can imagine that the aforementioned drooling idiots entering a Wikipedia search for her. If she becomes more notable then she can have her own article. TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The article may be merged throught the usual means by editors discretion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article on keyboard shortcuts in the Linux kernel consists almost entirely of howto instructions. WP:NOTHOWTO is the relevant policy here -- I don't think we could be left with more than a stub once we removed them. If it's not deleted, it should probably be merged somewhere. Vquex (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the non-"how-to" stuff into System request and leave as a redirect. Somno (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Somno. It would be nice to see System request expanded. For example, sparc machines have/had a "stop" key that could be used to halt execution and break into the OpenBoot PROM. Andareed (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO the article contains very little HOWTO-ish material and/or instructions (can Vquex perhaps clarify his view more?). It documents the functionality and how people use it, and I see nothing wrong with that. For example, the raising-elephants-mnemonic stuff can be seen as HOWTO, but you might just as well say it shows how the various commands cooperate and depend on each other. JöG (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how one would explain these shortcuts without some explanation of how to use them. It seems encyclopedic to me. JeremyStein (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable (no reliable sources — it's only a developer feature of the Linux kernel which is not activated on end-user kernels), un-encyclopedic style ("do this, then do that" etc). IMO merge with system request wouldn't work; the only thing that's worth noting is the fact that such a feature exists; everything else is excessive detail. -- intgr[talk] 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it needs some additonal historical information, perhaps who/where/when it was added to the kernel, I can't see why this is any more or less a HowTo than Control-Alt-Delete. And for the record it is activated in user kernels, Debian and Ubuntu in particular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhansonxi (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it could use a bit of rewriting to avoid the 'howto'-ish style, but I think that this is a very valid article and it should be kept. 70.55.214.11 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is not notable enough for its own article nor is it long enough, it should be deleted as this topic is already covered in the article about the book (The Moving Target) where this non existent fictional town exists and the events take place. per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:N MY♥INchile 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per aboveMY♥INchile 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally, editors do not !vote on their own nominations. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In light of Dravecky's comment way below, this is obviously a POINTy nom and solely because of that I'm saying that this article should be kept. Of course, this is a bit unneeded since it will obviously be kept, but editors should not behave in such behavior. CL — 02:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable well-referenced article that needs expansion, not deletion. This is a second try to delete this article in two months. Most of the available information exists for the 20+ novels by Sue Grafton that use this locale, not the one MacDonald novel the nominator is attempting to merge this info to. Indeed, the only references on that article are ones imported from this article as is the text about Santa Teresa that was lifted wholesale. Further, the nominator already tried a quiet merge/delete/redirect without consensus earlier today and thus is abusing the AfD process with what I believe to be a bad-faith nomination to achieve an end he could not achieve by brute force. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - needs expansion, well then expand it yourself, the last deletion had consensus yes but so what, this is a different issue, i think the topic is notable, but not notable enough for a separate article, this is clearly a new issue. which i tried to bring up by being bold and redirecting it to The Moving Target since there was insufficient debate on the merge at talk and it was reverted so i changed course in good faith for the betterment of this project. most information exists huh... THEN PROVE IT! or deal with it, the fact of the matter is that if your too lazy to improve it yourself then it really invalidates the whole argument that it could be improved, please point out what 20 novels these are, source it, add it, or allow the merge until someone does and it can be splintered off. but as of this moment these novels don't even verifiable exist. there is no abuse going on, just boldness like your revert, i must say it sounds like Dvacecko has some WP:OWN issues. calm and don't let it get to your head.MY♥INchile 02:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Reply Four of the five sources on this article deal specifically with the use of Santa Teresa in Sue Grafton's "alphabet mysteries" it it's already both proven and sourced. I don't know who "Dvacecko" might be but I'll be sure to caution him against that issue. - Dravecky (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Moving Target. This is an unusual one because the city is featured in two different series of stories by two different authors so having it as a stand-alone article would be useful. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this article has little chance of ever being more than a fairly insubstantial stub so I think it should be merged. May I also suggest to Dravecky and Myheartinchile to settle down and not let this debate get personal?ReykYO! 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple clear arguments that earned this article a "keep" verdict in an AfD proposed in May, 2008. It doesn't make sense to re-propose this article for deletion so soon after the previous discussion. There are many fictional places that have Wikipedia articles (e.g. Gondor), and there are many more good articles that started out as stubs. betsythedevine (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is completely invalid, firstly this deletion discussion is under different pretenses, the content is notable but does not stand alone, before it was a discussion on its notability. Sure there are many fictional places with article but why should this ministub not be merged? You have ignored the arguments for deletion and have simply voted. tsk tsk.MY♥INchile 00:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tsk tsk? The "multiple clear arguments" I cited include clear reference to the town's notable existence in the novels of Sue Grafton, now considerably more familiar to most people than The Moving Target. Looking at the revision history of that article I see that as of July 31 it was nearly doubled in length just six hours before this AfD by the addition of material about Santa Teresa and Kinsey Millhone. I see also that three of the four references now cited in The Moving Target come from works about Sue Grafton, not about Ross MacDonald. I do not see that information about a fictional town made notable by Sue Grafton should be a re-direct to a novel by Ross MacDonald. You could make a better case, given the "pretenses" (your word not mine) of this AfD, for a re-direct to a section under Kinsey Millhone or Sue Grafton. But since the town appears in the work of both authors, I think a separate article is justified. betsythedevine (talk) 13:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Sue Grafton is so damn important why doesn't she have an article on wikipedia, why don't any of her alleged novels have any articles? the fact of the matter is that the only place santa teresa is mentioned is in The Moving that has an article. Also no one has yet to prove if the Santa Teresas are the sameMY♥INchile 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I'd say that clinches it. Sue Grafton has had her own WP writeup since 2004, people around the world have read her many novels, and there are piles of sources. Heart in chile, please stop with the contentious, poorly researched nominations and arguments, and take a minute to consider the tone of your remarks. oh, and for the record, that is a Strong Keep vote. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator also put "R" Is for Ricochet up for AfD and while the result was a speedy keep, I found the "logic" behind the nomination somewhat revealing. - Dravecky (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tanǀ39 02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's taken a while for me to reach this conclusion, but I now believe that the article on Racism and Zionism serves no useful purpose and should be removed from Wikipedia. Much of the article's content is encyclopedic, but the page itself is little more than a hodge-podge of definitions, quote-farming and tangentially-related sub-topics. Much like Allegations of apartheid, this article seems fated to remain a WP:SYNTH violation even if the actual content is significantly improved.
This article was nominated for deletion once before, but I believe the circumstances were somewhat different at the time (for one thing, the article had a different title). In any event, I'm not convinced that the decision made by the closing admin was an accurate reflection of the discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy at that, this is a very common political science, sociology and psychology topic that a university student may investigate and expect to find in any comprehensive encyclopedia such as ours. It is a notable topic that is verified with reliable sources, it may need some work, but that may be said of every Wikipedia article and this one is in the middle when it comes to its level of being well written or not.MY♥INchile 22:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While this article needs a lot of reference work, as Myheartinchile has said, every Wikipedia needs a degree of work to it. Also, I see no reason why this should be deleted beyond that - CL — 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - This article is nothing if not [more] demonisation of the Jewish state. It, like similar pages ie Israel and the apartheid analogy -- Allegations of apartheid -- Anti-Zionism as simply a WP:POV_FORK, ie "...another article on the same subject...created to be developed according to a particular point of view." It is un-encyclopedic, WP:NOT, does not reflect the WP "spirit of mutual respect." Content is clearly WP:OR "arguments, speculation, and ideas; and ... unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Any one of the above ought to be sufficient but one could also add: Wikipedia:Overcategorization "... not every..... intersection of two or more such facts.... in an article requires an associated category." Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good general article. The other articles mentioned are focused on very specific aspects. Like all articles on such subjects, it needs more careful editing. We could solve many problems of POV by deleting all the articles about ethnic conflicts and pretending they didnt exist in the real wold, but w would be much use as an encyclopedia. 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)DGG (talk)
Weak delete A good encyclopedia article could be written on the subject, but this certainly isn't it. This is an essay. I think the current article is so hopelessly bad that it should be deleted. Maybe other editors, with appropriate WP:RS, can create a good article without relying on WP:SYNTH. Until then, it should be deleted. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 01:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject matter is clearly notable, as evidenced by the many sources cited. That the article needs work is not a reason to delete. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isnt' an article. It's a group of unrelated sections and therefore merely a big pile of WP:SYNTH and an embarassment to Wikipedia. пﮟოьεԻ57 08:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malik Shabazz. -- Ynhockey(Talk) 08:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That an article is not well written is not a reason to delete it but to improve it, something which some editors seem to have overlooked. The article could most definitely be improved, and should be done so in a NPOV way, but we cannot disregard the fact that the topic is both verifiable and notable, as it is regularly used both in debates and in news coverage. Please note that this is not a comment on whether it is correct to make the connection, it is a comment on the notability of the issue. JdeJ (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the article may or may not demonise Israel is not material to whether the article should be deleted; clearly an article of this title could be written either way or neutrally: if it demonises Israel, it could be edited to make it neutral. However, there are several good reasons to delete the article: First, the presumption of Wikipedia is against "and" topics. There are potentially endless "and" articles on topics like these. Second, the topic of the article is extremely vague, and potentially huge. There are currently three main topics the article addresses: 1) The racist attitudes or otherwise of the early Zionists. (This would be better covered in History of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, Old Yishuv, First Aliyah, etc.) 2) Whether or not Zionism - the idea of a Jewish state - is necessarily racist. (This is already addressed at [[1]] and Anti-Zionism, as well as Right of Return.) 3) The question of whether Israel discriminates. First, discrimination and racism are different, so this shouldn't be even addressed here. Rather, this could be dealt with adequately at the Israel article, as well as articles like Human rights in Israel, Arab citizens of Israel, Politics of Israel, Israeli-occupied territories, Political status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Demographics of Israel, Israeli law. It is significant that the last time the AFD was made, there was not really strong consensus: I think 8 keep, 6 delete, 5 merge/redirect. Most of the keepers, and other comments, said the article needed massive overhaul, but it hasn't got it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG's argument. Notable topic it just needs to be fleshed out for POV concerns. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just looked at what links to the page. As far as I can tell, only redirect pages link here. Another reason to delete!BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article's subject matter does not completely fit within that of any other article, even the one on the UN resolution which maintained for 16 years or so that "Zionism is racism" until repealed in 1991. Discussion of the topic has continued since 1991. It is not identical to the question of whether a system like apartheid exists in Israel or the occupied lands. As seen in the U.S., racism is in no way synonymous with apartheid. It has references to substantial coverage of the topic in numerous reliable sources, satisfying WP:N. Many Wikipedia articles have need of editing to improve the writing quality, but that is not a good ground for deletion. Edison (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's title is prima facie evidence that it's a POV fork of the article ZionismSceptre(talk) 18:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs work and a good dose of neutrality. AfD is for deletion, not cleanup.--Dmol (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BobFromBrockley and Number57. Article is sourced essay. --Shuki (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Tundrabuggy --Avi15 (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is in fact an essay, not an article about a specified subject. Novidmarana (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but needs major work. BillyTFried (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a truly awful piece of work. Not even close. IronDuke 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of no academic value whatsoever. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The topic is clearly one that has generated enough notablility, however this article needs to have its NPoV squareed away Advocate (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and rename to Pixel artist, following the rewrite. Also, Esn has made some good observations which should be seriously considered. Ty 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, looks made-up and is salted with buzz-word crap. Rob Banzai (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense or at best a neologism - no worthwhile ghits. andy (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Andy knows how to use BIG words oh boy! "salted with buzz-word crap" actually if you knew how wrong your were you would dirty yourself with your own "crap"
I think you should be put up for a speedy deletion and oh yea... It is clear that you are an elitist pig too and I can smell your "crap" all the way over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 23:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to have an engaging conversation with you boys because you have clearly decided (without any formal education on this terminology) that this not worthy of your ignorant position. "nonsense or at best a neologism"
WOW... how wrong you are. Sorry boys you just lack the understanding of this important artistic definition. This is common terminology in the digital arts - especially amoug the well-season artist that have been working in the digital arts for over two decades. Sorry boys you are out of you league. I know this may be a tough pill to shallow but it is true. The two of you have the intellect of a neutron.
Delete per nominator and andy. I have also warned User:Flipskarley for the above personal attacks. Vquex (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the purpose of this discussion is to form a consensus based on a dialogue regarding the notability of this article for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia, the personal attacks in this discussion are patently irrelevant including the inciteful rationale for deletion. As for pixology a google scholarsearch seems to indicate that the subject is at the very least nominally notable however, it seems to be more about photographic development and a software of that name than the current article which indicates somewhat of an overlap with graphic design.MY♥INchile 23:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the point about personal attacks, and I would agree that the nomination was worded rather undiplomatically. However, these references (and there are only a tiny handful) all appear to be very minor and certainly not enough to create an article that is more than a stub, so my delete !vote stands. Vquex (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only minor, but mostly references to a company called "pixology" from patents and the like. --Slashme (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess that "salted with buzz-word crap" is not a personal attack... you boys need to take a good look in the mirror —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It refers to the article, and not to a person. ReykYO! 23:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Reyk-yoyo maybe you are all a bunch of intellectual bozos. You should try to help a newbie rather than setting up so many rules and roadblocks for submission. I am a Digital Artist and one of the very first Users of the technology(over 25 years ago). I have taught at several major Universities including the University of Michan School of Art and Design / and the UofM Film school - The college for creative studies - Cranbrook - The University of Tampa - The International Academy of Design and Technology. I have also worked in some of the Top industrial Design Offices including The General Motoers Design Center and The Chrysler Design Office.
As far as I can tell you are all a bunch of wanna be intellectual snobs and you would rather slice and dice an new guy than help or embrace new ideas that are out of your scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flipskarley, I can assure you that this deletion process is not motivated by a desire to oppress new users. Wikipedia's purpose is to collect and present reliable information, so there are certain requirements an article has to fulfil before we can include it. The Articles for Deletion process is how those requirements are discussed and enforced.
An important policy is verifiability. This policy states, basically, that a subject needs to be covered by reliable outside sources, for example newspapers, scientific journals, critical reviews and the like. We need to insist on this one because otherwise how would we know if something is notable enough to include, or even if it exists? You say this article is tremendously important and worthy, and that if only we were familiar with it we'd agree with you. Well, prove it by providing outside sources and I'll be convinced.
I understand you're upset that your article is being dismissed as "crap" and "a neologism". It's true that we regulars at AfD are often more brusque than we should be, and it can irritate and discourage some users. That's something we need to be more careful to avoid.
If you, as a new user, want assistance there are plenty of places you can ask. WP:HELP is a good place to start, or you can send one of us a message on our talk page. But you surely understand that calling people "bozos" and "snobs" isn't likely to go down well with anyone, even people who otherwise would go out of their way to help a newbie. Regards, ReykYO! 00:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk - Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. Apparently there are folks associated with wiki who would rather dismiss a new emerging idea rather than trying to understand it. Yes my use of language was abrupt but only after I was characterized as "crap" and "a neologism"... Looser!
Maybe I jumped into the pool too quickly - I would appreciate some help. If you guys care to pull the "Pixologist" for now... then go for it - but I will tell you there are highly (6 figure salaries) professionals within the industry were I worked for 15 years that use this language everyday. Once again I am sorry if my words are "crap"and "a neologism" but really some people need to get off there intellectual high horse and eat a humble pie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipskarley (talk • contribs) 02:24, 1 August 2008
Not a problem. I'm glad to be able to help. I do think calling your article "crap" was over the top by the original nominator, but the neologism part was justified and isn't meant to be an attack on you. It just means that it's a recently coined word, possibly used widely in a certain subject area- there's nothing wrong with neologisms, it's just that they're often not suitable for this encyclopedia. If your article ends up getting deleted, you can always draft another version on your personal user page. Since user pages aren't in the main article space it won't be brought to AfD- it's a place where you can draft your article in peace before you introduce it into the encyclopedia proper. If you can find enough reliable sources, that is. I'm happy to help you any way I can- send me a message by clicking the YO! in my signature if you have any other questions. ReykYO! 03:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unsourced and badly written article about a non-notable term someone made up to mean digital artist. Edward321 (talk) 04:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is currently completely unsourced. I found few Google hits for the word "pixologist", which is not a good sign considering that it is a computer-oriented occupation. While this article is currently listed under the title Pixologist, it might be more appropriate (assuming the article is worthy at all) to list it as Pixology instead (by analogy to other articles). However, it appears that "Pixology plc" is the name of a company, and so Google hits for "pixology" will find hits for the company, not just the art form. I may reconsider if the article gets a significant rewrite during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90(talk) 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I agree my use of the word "crap" was too strong but it did not warrant the author's venomous personal attacks both here and on his user page, attacks that surprised me for both their offensiveness and persistence. His claims of being an art school teacher and that "highly paid" professionals" use the term are as unsupported as his article. Please don't let him intimidate you into giving his article any more favor than any other WP:MADEUP product. Wikipedia articles require notability and references and at this point neither are in evidence. Rob Banzai (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, strongly: a non notable neologism that seems to have promotional intent, as made obvious by the vague prose and glittering generalities of the article's text. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced essay with no sources (and an extreme WP:PEACOCK problem). AndyJones (talk) 11:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep EBSCOhost and ProQuest have zero instances of pixologist. Pixology references, which are abundant, refer to the company. Sorry, but this seems to fail WP:NFT. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote per Benjiboi's additions. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMove to Pixel artist. Appears to be nothing but original research; a fancy sounding term that someone made up. At best it could be used only in circles so small as to have escaped google's notice. Nonnotable, not even verifiable. Themfromspace (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my original statement in regards to the word "pixologist" which the article was originally about but the updated form would be more than acceptable under "pixel artist". Themfromspace (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm currently trying to rewrite this article. Banjeboi 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although Benji is putting some good work in here I think the problem is still in the use of the term 'pixologist' to define the profession or the person doing the work. What's described in the article now is in the domain of digital artists but doesn't support the usage of the terms 'pixologist' or 'pixologgy' as defined in the original article. What's here at best could be rolled into an article on digital media. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree only on the part about use of the terms pixologist and pixology. I think the article should be moved to pixel artist which presently redirects to pixel art. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it moves to Pixel artist. Plenty of content to support this profession even though many are known by different terms, artist, graphic artist, designer, web illustrator, etc. The 5-year juried and international-touring "Into the Pixel" artshow demonstrates that this emerging profession is now hitting the mainstream. That the vast majority of information has not yet saturated "old media" venues isn't surprising as those who do this seem to all be online and new technologies pretty much make a printed book outdated as soon as it's written. Banjeboi 19:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if renamed, or merge to Pixel Art. Excellent work by Benjiboi: very impressive. But there's still no justification for an article with this name. AndyJones (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think there is consensus that the name is problematic at best; once it has been used regularly in reliable sources it can be reintroduced. Banjeboi 20:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The good quality of Benji's work aside is there any support for the notability of the term "pixel artist?" This strikes me as just another version of "pixologist." I have seen many references to digital artists and in my line of work (advertising) that's the closest we come to making a distinction between a traditional media artist and one that specializes in computer based media. Unless an argument can be made for the notablity of any of these terms beyond "digital artist" we're splitting hairs. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes actually and I think you'll find just like graphic artist was a newish term for some time, this one is now well on the rise. Whereas pixolist doesn't seem to register there are tons of hits (131k) [2] that certainly seems to suggest the exact phrase is being used even if it's not used equally by all. For instance, online ads looking for "Graphic Artist / Illustrator / Pixel Artist"[3]. Likewise we don't always have an exact profession match but a hairstylist might not like our term for them --> hairdresser. This is now become a notable subspeciality of design, that it's generally restricted to entertainment, most obviously games, doesn't make it less notable. Banjeboi 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Pixel artist or merge into Pixel art. Excellent work on the rewrite. The article now bears no resemblance to the old version. ReykYO! 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the paragraphs that talk specifically about pixel artists (such as the first paragraph of the "Background" section), and Rename article to "pixel artist". Merge most of the information which describes pixel art into the pixel art article, while taking care to not lose anything from either article. My rationale is that there's no sense in having two articles with in-depth descriptions of pixel art. So while it would be good to have a short summary of just what exactly "pixel art" is in the "pixel artist" article, all in-depth information should be moved to a single article. This article currently has a lot of information about pixel art that the "pixel art" article does not have, and vice versa, so I would ask whoever does the merge to be careful and make sure that no information falls by the wayside. Oh, and great job. ;) Esn (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Pixel artist per the excellent rewrite. This article should definitely be kept now, just under a better name. Artichoker[talk] 22:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the provision that it be renamed to "pixel artist". For a supposedly-notable computer term you'd think that Google would have more than 424 hits (and wouldn't suggest I meant "mixologist"). In comparison, at 136,000 Ghits, "pixel artist" seems a well-established term. I strongly disagree with the suggestion to rename or merge to pixel art, both this article and that one have plenty of content and deserve seperate articles. -- Atamachat 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trouble, as I see it, is that they're both great articles but they largely cover the same topic. Which is why I propose keeping this article, but merging most of the text that deals with pixel art rather than pixel artists into the appropriate article. As an example, see the difference between the animator and animation articles. Esn (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (vote change). Just watched enough of this film 's tripe to want to vomit. I do not wish to support this article. The entire theory is conspiracy theory hogwash. The film presents opinion, half-truth, and misleading inuendo in a calm and pseudo-scientific documentary style... using a format that makes this appear as if such were proof. The filmmaker IS a fringe loon who is making money off the ignorance of others. The article's inclusion in Wiki lends it a validation and a dignity it does not deserve. Dump it.Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my personal opinion. Stand by vote. Schmidt (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of passing mentions but no actual evidence of notability and the article reads as WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. While the article badly needs inline citations, maintenance is not a reason for deletion. It is a film, and documents the continuing controversy about whether the event happened. While any sane person knows that this is a nutter's point of view, it is not our job to pass judgment on the nutters. The material is verifiable, the article well written, and with some sourcing would be an fine Start Class article. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fringe viewpoint conspiracy theory, which even claims that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R were in cahoots from WW2 through all the Apollo landings, with fake Russian radios on the Moon to simulate astronaut transmissions, so well that all observers around the world were fooled, even radiotelescopes tracking the capsules. This film often rehashes old balderdash already covered at Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories and receives appropriate brief mention there. This article is referenced to things like conspiracy blogs and user generated reviews at Amazon. No reliable sources with substantial coverage of the film. Fails notability as a film. An article which supports a pseudoscientific fringe view in a non-notable film without reliable sources to show the film has received any substantial coverage in the mainstream press or in scientific journals. Edison (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. See my reply beneath Michael Q. Schmidt's comment. — BillCtalk 20:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened to this documentary? The article doesn't indicate that it's ever been distributed or shown anywhere, despite the efforts of the producer (whose claim to fame seems to be only this documentary). Unless it's shown that this has been shown, David S. Percy is probably next. Mandsford (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment: Shown...? No. Video snippets are easily viewable on Youtube and others.[8], [9]. You can watch the entire film at Google Video.[10]. Percy and Aaulis are making a fortune selling it to the ignorant.[11], [12], [13], [14], et al. This fraud is a disservice to Wiki. Schmidt (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability I don't think that getting a tape sold in Amazon, which they didn't bother to review either, gives this notability. The only links to this or the author are to talk about how non-notable this "movie" was. About the same level of notability as most youtube movies.Advocate 05:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per Advocate70. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. jj137(talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in multiple secondary sources can be found to establish notability. Vquex (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not because I disagree with his theories, but because there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of his theories.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think his movie is notable, but I'm not sure he is. I'm not sure he's done anything notable other than the movie. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability I don't think that getting a tape sold in Amazon, which they didn't bother to review either, gives him notability. The consensus on his movie is that it is also non-notable either. He also fails WP:ONEVENT because all he is known for is this one movie. Advocate (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unmaintainable list, best handled with category. Canterbury Tailtalk 21:43, 31 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 15:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This game is gaining popularity. Four of my good friends independantly mentioned this game to me. It is sold at reputable and popular locations, such as Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's one vote from the person who created the article. :) Now for some impartial votes that address the game's lack of notability. Rob Banzai (talk)
But that's just it -- the game is notable. DRosenbach
Weak keep. Being sold at high-end toy stores is an indication of notability, but not proof of it. The article needs some independent sources...however, I think they're findable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger keep. they've been found and put in. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a non-notable Scrabble knockoff to me. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world does being a knock-off have to do with notability? It's not like I'm manufacturing this game in my basement? It's being sold all over and online and there are numerous independent news outlets that have covered it? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 03:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see some of those numerous independent stories. They'll help. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What ever happened to stub articles? Why is this article being attacked on the day it was created for not having every bit of info possible? Anyone who does a simple Google search will find 111,000 hits. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but I can tell you this: Sources help, complaining doesn't. The sources you have added do help greatly (note that a stub still needs to have some verifiability). And no, this article should not have been hit with an AFD 8 minutes in. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think everything is going well here, and I'm not interested in picking a fight, but that was a cheap shot. Complaining doesn't help? I'm not a two year old -- I am making a complaint substantiated with what I feel were persuasive assertions. Why would you suggest that complaints are unwelcome? DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being listed on a site such as Amazon.com or BN.com does not establish notability in any way. However, the BN entry lists quite a handful of awards won by this game. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how any of the awards the game has won are notable. It seems like a lot of smaller parent groups gave the game an award. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable ripoffMY♥INchile 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular, award-winning, sourced game. Not a ripoff of Scrabble unless you consider any word game (like Upwords) to be a ripoff of Scrabble, though the new game Scrabble Me is very similar to Bananagrams. Edward321 (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple awards given to this game demonstrate notability. Suggest early WP:SNOW closure. JBsupreme (talk) 06:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced. I see no reason, given the amount of references and uniqueness described that it should be deleted. Xyz7890 (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Many !votes weak on both sides, but lack of forthcoming sources to establish the verifiability of the article is telling. Early keep assertions that nom was suggesting improvement rather than deletion are wrong. lifebaka++ 20:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing that will strike the reader is that this article (about an Indian research centre) is a complete mess. The prose is disjointed and ungrammatical; phrases like “two world class Meteorologist are behind this centre” and “now need not to say more about future of this centre…” make me suspect that the intention is to promote the centre, though the text lapses into incomprehensibility so often that it’s difficult to say for sure. The style is quite distinctive and reminds me of previously deleted articles on people connected with the centre, notably Prem C. Pandy and Dr. Vivek Kumar Pandey; both of which also wandered between promotion and incoherence before tailing off into excessively long and largely irrelevant lists of external links. Previous attempts by experienced users to work with the person behind this cluster of articles (to be fair, his or her first language is almost certainly not English and I suspect he/she has little understanding of Wikipedia norms) have completely unsuccessful, so I have little hope that the article will improve if we leave it alone.
The fact that the article is WP:RUBBISH is not by itself a reason to delete it, so I started trying to improve it myself… and hit a brick wall before I made a single edit. Regarding the current text as beyond cleanup and intending to boldly replace it with a stub as an interim solution, I looked for the centre’s website to find some background information, and after much Googling it seems that it doesn’t have one – very strange for a modern research centre. In fact, Allahabad University’s own website makes no mention of this group [15] and Google turns up 35 unique hits, none of which give me any useful information on the centre itself. The vast collection of external links in the article doesn't help either; many of them are 404, many of the live ones don’t mention the centre at all, and the few that do are either papers published by the centre (which tell us about the atmosphere and the oceans, but not the centre), or else things like telephone directories.
A research centre of this name verifiably exists, verifiably publishes papers on oceanography and is verifiably associated with the University of Allahabad (see here, for example)... but after much effort, I can’t say any more about it than that. Is it a faculty within the university, an interdisciplinary association of staff from several faculties, or even a name for one professor’s own research group? How many people does it employ? Without being able to verify the most basic facts like these, I don’t feel that I could even turn this into a viable stub. I also notice that the centre gets seven Google Scholar hits [16]; I don’t know what would be sufficient for an individual university department to be seen as notable, but it would be unusual for a single academic with this few papers to be accepted as notable.
I’m open to the possibility that someone with access to more specialist offline, or perhaps non-English, sources might be able to sort this page out and rewrite it as a coherent article, or stub, which at least meets verifiability requirements; if someone can do this I’ll happily withdraw the nomination. However, this hasn’t happened in the six months the article has existed, and I don’t think it is in the interests of Wikipedia to keep content this poor hanging around indefinitely, especially when there are serious notability and verifiability concerns surrounding the subject. I’m therefore bringing it here. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I though about trying to rescue the page before it inevitably ended up here, but as mentioned above, it will take considerabl rewriting. Nontheless, it appears to be a major national resource, not just an laboratory at a particular university, or a university department. I am a little bothered low, but the relative few number of graduates so far at the doctoral level, and the newness of the institute. DGG (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text does imply that it's a major national resource, certainly, but is there any further evidence of this? As you say the low number of PhD graduates seems a little odd if this is the case, as does the negligible web presence. I also note that the text mentions "When permanent faculties are in place..." - which implies that it is something at a preliminary stage. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in desperate need of cleaning but schools are notable.MY♥INchile 02:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD is not clean-up. All these issues seem to be addressable as wikifying and regular editing. Banjeboi 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree, and as mentioned I put some time into trying to fix it; but the difficulty in verifying even fairly basic information is not obviously easy to address (I've exhausted the resources available to me for doing so), and I'm not convinced that replacing badly written unverifiable text with well written (or in my case, adequately written) unverifiable text would be a major improvement. However, if someone can find some meaningful sources to improve it I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Editing issues apart, this institution is fairly different from your typical school or college.To my knowledge this is one of only two such institutions, the other being in Goa. Needs a lot of work though. I'll see if I can chip in. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A grotesque mess, with no substantial independent sources in sight. -- Hoary (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes it's a mess but with 90+ links I'm willing to concede good faith that this unwikified attempt is savable. We're dealing with multiple cultural divides including English as a second language, new to wikipedia and geek interpretation. My impression is that will be seeing a lot more of these issues as new users worldwide are able to access and participate on building wikipedia. Banjeboi 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's something in what you say. However, I think you'll find that a lot of these external links are not sources or authorities for substantive propositions but instead mentions that this or that exists. (These allow pseudo-sourcing of a kind I'll caricature with Britney Spears is a sexy singer<ref>[web page mentioning Spears]</ref><ref>[web page mentioning sexiness]</ref><ref>[web page mentioning singers]</ref>) The factors you've listed are here mixed up with what seems to be a relentless, long-term effort to glorify one Prem C. Pandey and anything related to him, and an inability or unwillingness to digest requests and instructions (phrased more simply than this). You've made a good start with the article but I fear that you're going to have to waste hours more of your life before the article looks decent, and even if that happens I'll probably wonder why this requires its own article rather than being written up in a paragraph within the article on the university. -- Hoary (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be possible but I'd still believe there is a bit more to this than just self-promotion of some sort, and we can always delete it later if once we see what actually there isn't up to it. I'd like to hear what those familiar with the field have to say as well some folks more familiar with India's educational and governmental system set-up. With the recent Tsunamis and other environmental phenomena I don't find it hard to believe that this is somewhat notable. That it's so poorly structured doesn't help but that's also not a reason to delete. Banjeboi 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference part is a mess, but just like Banjeboi pointed out that AfD is not a cleanup department (or forcing someone to cleanup) OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete. I'm reluctant, as the center appears to meet grounds for notability, but as the nominator has pointed out, there are severe verifiability, POV and quality issues for this article. It is a disgrace to Wikipedia to have an article like this around, and it would require a complete rewrite to meet standards. Delete and userfy it, and allow it to be created in the future without prejudice when it meets minimum standards. RayAYang (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. AfD is not clean-up nor do we delete articles that need clean-up tags such as {{rewrite}}, we fix them. Banjeboi 22:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt this one is fixable by anybody interested, and I believe that articles that are unfixable on any rational timescale should be removed. In fact, this article is so poor that, if one relies on it alone, it puts the notability of its subject into doubt. The state of the sources is so poor that notability may well not exist, and the center may well be nothing more than a funding vehicle (there are lots of other "centers" at universities dotted around the world with first-rank researchers attached to them; this does not entitle them to articles, just like departments do not get articles, for the most part, absent storied history). I believe the center is "probably" notable, since it appears to exist, and on balance research centers named after people tend to have significant coverage, but that's a good way from *showing* that our usual standards at WP:ORG have been met. RayAYang (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's see this one fixed. Assuming for a moment that there is something here that's worth fixing (and it's such a dog's dinner that I really don't know), then of course there is a huge amount of work to be done. I see that efforts have already been made (and I also see that one of the longterm contributors to this article is still "improving" it in his own odd way), but the efforts in the direction of lucidity and persuasiveness seem to have hardly scratched the surface, pardon the cliché. I'm hard pressed to find a single sentence within it that approaches what I expect in an encyclopedia article. (True, there is It is one of the leading atmospheric and oceanic science centers of India which also deals with earth environmental phenomena which is clear enough, but "leading" is either substantive or mere PoV, needing evidence or deletion respectively.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these are great reasons to clean it up not for deletion. We think it's notable but no one's has yet to put in the time to wikify and covert the sources. Then there's the writing, the regular contributor's obviously have a culture and English as a non-primary language gap. I have problems figuring out wikipedia policies and protocols so I have absolutely no issue with seeing how someone, whose language skills are wanting for this English-speaking wiki, has even more of these issues. And yes, this is made more cloudy with so many sources and links cited but if even a small fraction, say ten percent, are valid that's already ten refs, far more than quite a few articles have. This does need a lot of work but that's not a reason to delete; It's too much work to clean up sounds all too familiar to many articles that have been also in need of some TLC but now make wikipedia a better encyclopedia after improvement. Banjeboi 06:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't get around to the serious job of clearing it up, how about making a more convincing start? Just to inspire you, I've done started for you. The first sentence made very humdrum assertions with a number of references. I looked at four of them; one didn't exist and I identified the others. (I realize that looking at diffs is tedious, but it's considerably less tedious than what I did, so please look at it, and click to see my edits that followed.) I then looked at the three links. One certainly did not mention "Banerjee" and seemed not to mention the esteemed Prem C. Pandey, for which it was cited a second time (I'm not entirely sure about the latter); I removed it. Another didn't mention "Banerjee"; I removed that too. The third actually did mention the Centre; yes, amid hundreds of kilobytes, we read a single short and minimally informative sentence about it. Figuring that it wasn't worth the electrons, I deleted that too. ¶ Four references done; only 26 more to go. Enjoy yourselves! At the end, you may even decide that it was all worthwhile. ¶ My own guess is that you'll start but give up out of boredom, that this AfD will be closed as "no consensus", and that the multiply-named, multiple-IP-using author will just continue to shovel in "references" he hasn't even read. So prove me wrong! -- Hoary (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC) .... PS I've done some more of this. I haven't yet encountered a single link that genuinely is the reference that it's purported to be. Will there prove to be any? -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since nobody else has done anything substantial, I've continued to look through the "references" (those attached by <REF>). I've come up to the point where KBCAOS and the esteemed Professor Pandey intersect. Before I arrived, Pandey's (unspecified) "help" to KBCAOS was a claim with four "references". Two didn't even mention him. One, which I've left in for now, says who he is but says nothing about KBCAOS. Another promises to say that he won some prize, though as it's in a huge PDF file and I'm connected via dial-up right now, I haven't yet investigated. ¶ Benjiboi writes above "the regular [contributors] obviously have a culture and English as a non-primary language gap." Yes, yes, true. But this isn't how Indians "reference" any academic paper that I have ever seen. (If it were, then Indian submissions would never be accepted by non-Indian publications, while Indian publications would be a laughing-stock.) My more charitable interpretation is of a quite stunning degree of incompetence. My less charitable interpretations include mindless "reference"-stuffing and at least one that WP:NPA probably prevents me from expressing. ¶ NB I haven't yet even started on what the article says, with its wikilinks to itself, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more Pandeyspam. Honestly, I see no evidence that this is anotable subject and considerable evidence that the serial vanity merchant Pandey is padding his resume again. Per nom, it's essentially unverifiable. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So just to be clear here, you've looked through the 90+ references and nothing supports any of this content? Banjeboi 22:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know about Guy, but I have been through all the external links in the article and I cannot find a single one which could be used to support any substantial content. The centre is credited with a few papers (several links to journal articles). Some people associated with it (with yahoo.com email addresses... which seems a little odd, like the lack of a website) participated in a conference of some sort. [17] Some money was requested to initiate it in 2001 [18]. That's about it. The remainder of the links are a depressing mishmash of non-existent pages [19], pages which do not mention the centre in any way (most of the live pages do seem to mention people called Pandey... but usually in the context of the NCAOR which does appear to be notable), Wikipedia mirrors [20], Wikibin [21], posts to mailing lists [22] and something called My Soccer World [23]. The mere fact that the article contains a large number of links does not mean that they could be converted to references if only someone made the effort - I have made the effort, and they cannot. I'm not going to reformat them to look like proper references if they don't actually support the text in the article. Believe me, I am sympathetic to keeping articles on academic subjects, and have put a significant amount of time into this one, but I am left with the conclusion that there is not enough here to support even a useful stub. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the assertion that nothing was of value was made not by looking at the references or potential value but by judging the contributor. Banjeboi 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Hoary until and unless someone comes up with real sources. Schools are not necessarily notable and so are departments and institutes, it's sources we need. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I've never heard of it, and there is no evidence for its existence. No website, yet it claims to be one of Indias major centres? Nonsense. Note that A research centre of this name verifiably exists, verifiably publishes papers on oceanography and is verifiably associated with the University of Allahabad (see here is wrong: the source used there, "Current Science", is a very minor journal - again, I've never heard of it - and I doubt it goes to the trouble of checking peoples affiliations (journals don't, on the whole). The argument that the article has 90 refs so must somehow be OK is non-tenable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems over strong. The first Ph D from the Centre is listed in the University Alumni list. The Centre does appear to exist, but whether it is a major centre or is notable enough is of course another question. I'm neutral as I do not have the time to wade through the complete mess that this article is. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? The claim of 7 Ph D students has no refs. Which ref do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could well be right. How complex the whole matter gets with external pages copying wilipedia articles. If nothing cam be produced to demonstrate it does exist, then it should not just be deleted but speedy deleted. --Bduke (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article is now being targeted by deleting content and references. I find this alarming at best. Banjeboi 23:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've hacked out a pile of unref'd stuff, and invited debate on the talk page. Do please join me there, if you are interested William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify one or two credible, reliable, substantive references that have been deleted. ¶ Some way above, you ask JzG how many of the dozens of "references" he has read. I wonder how many you have read. (I also wonder when you are going to start improving the article, a job that you say can and should be done.) Over the last couple of years, I've read many inserted by this inimitable writer; but in this particular article I've so far read under twenty. The greater number have of course been provided in support of this or that assertion about this Center. Worried that the "K." of "K. Banerjee" might be spelled out, that "Center" might be "Centre", etc., I've searched for the string "banerjee". Typically, this string doesn't even appear anywhere within the "reference". Sometimes it does appear but the "reference" says nothing about the assertion that has just been made. Should I have been more culturally sensitive and recognized all of these, however vapid, as genuine "references" and left them in? -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could move them to the talkpage as "these don't seem to support anything"; I'm working on rescuing several other articles and given the tone at this discussion it doesn't seem like any amount of improvements would make a difference. Banjeboi 02:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could indeed, but I can't be bothered. Here is the last version of the article before I started to examine the external links between <ref> and </ref> and to remove those that said nothing. Just look in that old version of the page and click on any link that doesn't appear in the latest version. -- Hoary (talk) 04:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever KBCAOS is, it does seem to be a "Centre" rather than a "Center". I'd so rename the article myself but don't want to cause additional confusion while it's undergoing this AfD (which it might not survive). Anyone wanting to search for something substantive about it within any of the various "references" should start by looking for "Banerjee", but if there are too many irrelevant hits (e.g. for irrelevant people named Banerjee) should look for "Banerjee Centre" rather than (or as well as) "Banerjee Center". ¶ Meanwhile, I've deleted yet more of the footnotes for citing papers that don't even mention what it is that's footnoted. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to be really thorough, you could also look for "KBCAOS" - a couple of pages use this abbreviation without spelling it out. But I've already looked for it in all the links which were not 404 or obviously useless (like mailing list posts), and it doesn't add anything significant. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. In general, I think that accredited degree-granting colleges and universities are inherently notable once basic WP:V requirements are met. This one does not appear to be a university or a college even though some degrees (seem to be?) awarded; its size and activities are rather unclear and there are still outstanding WP:V problems with figuring out exactly what the center is and what it does. Nsk92 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the lack of verifiable sources as argued by Nsk92. --Crusio (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has verifiability, the references and external links need to be re-organised, however. --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts of it are verifiable, and what are the sources which support them? Iain99Balderdash and piffle 12:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most research university departments have several centers, and we don't usually keep articles about the department level, let alone the center level, unless there is significant coverage specifically about the center in third party publications. “They exist” isn't good enough. This one may or may not exist, but the disaster that is the references section doesn't convince me that they have the nontrivial coverage needed for our notability standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Sorry not only is there the puff and vanity aspect but it doesn't meet notability. --BozMotalk 11:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future film, no reliable sources found. Prod placed by Shnitzel Treelo removed by IP without reason. No hits at all outside IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Withdrawn I searched the exact title and turned up only two hits, one of which was Wikipedia. Thanks to those who have turned up a few more good sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." JohnCD (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Sources are out there, and if this article is to believed, filming is due to commence this Tuesday (August 5), so deletion per WP:NFF might be a touch hasty. Incidentally, this AfD was started two days ago for what now seems to a duplicate article. PC78 (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; it appears to be a reliable source, and can verify most of what's in the article, which should alleviate some of your concerns raised in the nom. It's not the only source, either [24], [25]. PC78 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is definately not a trivial mention. Schuym1 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point, these references you pull up are predominantly for casting calls, only one explains when principal photography will start which is really the contentious point here, not just how many references you can dig up proving it exists. Won't be against a merge into Scooby Doo should it just not be notable enough but I'll be watching this for the remainder. treeloradda 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the start of principal photography is the main point of contention, then I think you're missing the point. It's scheduled to begin in just four days (the duration of this AfD, incidentally); why be in such a hurry to delete if a valid article could be created just days later? PC78 (talk) 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films, since this planned project has not begun filming and is never guaranteed to do so in the film industry. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. If filming is to begin in 54 days, then there is no need to rush to delete. This is is one of those cases where a film is moving away from Wikipedia:Crystal and Wikipedia:NFF to become something easily established under Wikipedia:N, Wikipedia:V, and Wikipedia:RS. No one need be in a rush here. So let's simply wait and watch the transition. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the above comment actually makes the case for deleting now. Rushing to delete this article isn't the issue - it was the rush to write it that's the problem. If this film is ever shot, I'm sure Wikipedia will still be around for the article that can be written about it. TruthGal (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rush to write? The article has been evolving since its inception on July 20. Wikipedia will still be around in 4 days as the article continues to be improved. The nom spoke to lack of sources, stating that "No hits at all outside IMDb", That issue has been addressed. There is no need to delete prematurely. Or would it serve if I move the whole thing to a sandbox for 4 days and bring it back when filming comences and the entire reason for this AfD is rendered moot? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree with Schmidt. There is no reason to beleive the film won't be shot. There are multiple sources indicating it will. They've even done casting for it. thus we have no reason to NOT beleive the film will be made. Until that changes I feel we should keep the article.--Marhawkman (talk) 07:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a very, very long list of movies that went through the casting process only to never be shot. (John Belushi in Confederacy of Dunces... John Candy in Confederacy of Dunces... Chris Farley in Confederacy of Dunces... Will Ferrell in Confederacy of Dunces...) TruthGal (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a very sad history [26][27][28]... and trebly so because of the number of times the death of a lead caused cancellation or postponement... but with respect, this AfD is not about that film, nor about a list of films that were never made. In 3 days filming either begins or it does not. There is no hurry here, really. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you have just given me an excellent idea for an article about films that should have been made but never were... what a wealth of resource must be out there! A whole world of speculation or sadness or intrigue... and article that will never stop growing. Do you have that "very, very long list" written down anywhere? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No notability shown for this not-yet-released video game whose creator is a redlink. The article's creator matches the name of that company. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. It would've if there were references, it would be okay, but there aren't. --Meldshal[T]{C} 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable independent game, still under development, and no sources. MrKIA11 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is still under developement but is notable per the links and refs.(At least it actually exist)Gearsof War2 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but I don't see how any of those references make the game notable. None of these sources are secondary. Just because something exists doesn't mean it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well I guess thats just my inexperience kicking in.Gearsof War2 23:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might become notable after release; but unless any secondary references are given, it isn't. Bart133(t)(c) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game with no sources that is still in development. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — This is a contested prod. In addition, the article was created by User:ChirpingCricketGames, which is a WP:COI; this user was indefinitely blocked two minutes after the prod was posted. MuZemike (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the user link above (was "Editing User:"). Nifboy (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not currently notable, though it may be in future. Natcong (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a quick stub to drum up interest, crystalballery and advertising. I can find no reliable secondary sources to satisfy notability. It may become notable if it's released, however the game's site has attracted two message-board posts in the past few months, it's totally below the radar at the minute. Someoneanother 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The official site has a greyed-out link to its press page, which I think says it all. Nifboy (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. lifebaka++ 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a song which "was to be" the first single on the singer's "upcoming" album, but (under "Confirmation") the article quotes the singer as saying it won't. Clips have been on commercials but the song has not been released. The first reference is Myspace; the others are the singer's management and mtv.ca, but I can't actually find any mention of the song on the last two. Contested PROD. I have included an article about another song which "will be" the first single on this "yet-to-be-titled" album, but has also not been released. Delete both as comprehensively failing WP:Music#Songs and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all here. The single won't be released, nor will the album. The singer even states that in the one source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more reliable sources, and I would like to know what source Ten Pound Hammer is talking about. It was her SECOND album that's not going to be released (that was entitled Sunday Love, read the story there), not her third independent album. User:Jonnyjonny
Delete per nom. The song isn't actually going to be a single, and is therefore not notable. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube and MySpace are not reliable sources. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but I'm still not seeing anything that asserts anything else than the fact that this wasn't released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 22:03, 31 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.
Not sure about the notability of this particular device... Calvin 1998(t-c) 20:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only relevant sources I could find relate to the YouTube video mentioned as the only source in the article. (Okay, not every one, I found the patent application, but you get the idea.) -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are articles being proposed for deletion when they are hours old? Wikipedia can't be built in a day. Give it some time. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rosenbach, how is it notable in your opinion? IceUnshattered (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I happened to come across it on the AfD page and had a few hours to combat one of the things I dislike about Wikipedia -- how soon articles are put up for deletion. The editors above presented argument for deletion based upon "an only source being a YouTube video," "not notable" and "largely unreferenced. I would agree that the article as it had been created met all of those criteria for deletion -- but the article as it stands now does not. Whistle tips were a 2002 fad that sparked a 2002-2003 legislative drive in an American state that resulted in it being banned by the state DMV. Inasmuch as it is a recognized modification to automobiles (which nearly every family in America owns) and it sparked considerable controversy in a tremendous US city (San Francisco and environs) leading to local coverage (Oakland Tribune) that was not a minor, one time moment in the spotlight, but rather snowballed into state government involvement resulting in a state bill makes it notable. State congresswomen don't nominate items for state law that are non-notable. State laws do not regulate non-notable actions or entities. Two or more automotive websites and network television do not cover non-notable events. On top of this, this "Bubb Rubb" internet thing, while I'd say is not notable enough by itself, does have a part in this article, as did other viral videos, such as Numa Numa and the Pepsi-mentosvideo. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 15:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me, but we need cites. IceUnshattered (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen the article, I've updated it with citations for all the information I have written about above. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
← Unless anyone has anything else to say, I will withdraw this AfD per cleanup mentioned above. Calvin 1998(t-c) 21:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tanǀ39 20:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Did not see any mention of him in the sources provided. Granted, he may be related to some notable people, but by himself he is not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable about him or his (now)non-existent kingdom. Anyway as per the Indian constitution, all princley titles have been abolished. "Nominal ruler" does not hold. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well if an ex-ruler does not hold any place in an open encyclopedia then u might be right. and there are other articles on ex-rulers of Indian Princely states where their titles have been used. Karan112 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If reliable sources exist, they aren't likely to be in English. Hopefully a Hindi speaker can evaluate this and locate possible sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for Punjabi references may prove more fruitful... --Shruti14tcs 13:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know there is a List of Indian Princely States, but is there any such list for leaders of these states? I can find none. If there is one, perhaps the leader's name should be noted there and the page should be redirected to that list. --Shruti14tcs 13:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentComment:if anyone can check with the Zila Teshildars records at Nawashahar i guess it wud be clear that the Raja's name is authentic.....i'm trying to procure the punjabi text and make appropriate translations....although it is absurd that the INP site has taken the page off for review......anyway, if someone agrees i could rather re-do the article on the people - "Ghorewahs" which number a few hundred thousand in Punjab-India and Pakistan and by then also get the source to prove the Raja's position and merge this on that page.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan112 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:striking out duplicate keep vote from same user. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That sounds like a good idea. The notability of the Ghorewah's would have to be established first, before an assessment could be made as to the notability to their present day post-independence ruler, or whatever term is appropriate for him. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Karan112, you have voted keep twice. If you wish to change your vote , please strike out your earlier vote using <s>Strike-through text</s>. If you do not wish to change your vote, just type Comment instead of Keep. Also , please sign your messages using ~~~~~. Thanks. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources coverage to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. In fact, no reliable sources to even verify the information given in the article, as required by WP:V. GoogleBooks gives 26 hits[34] but all appears to be false positives. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment + Suggestion: Regarding ex-rulers, please understand this: there are no more kings or kingdoms in India any more. Some memebrs of "former" royal families(eg Karan Singh) may be notable on account of their activities; not because they have blue blood. If there are othe articles about such kings and queens, I think they should be weeded out. At the time of India's Independece there were over 550 kingdoms, most of them no larger than a village or Tehsil. Gorehwa was probably one of them. We cannot have articles for all 550*2 "nominal" His RH and Her RH and their kith and kin,just on account of being of some royal family that no longer rules. Of course an article on Gorewah as a former princley state is welcome. But the royal lineages that are mentioned should in my opinion, stop at 1947, and not continue beyond it.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This looks to me rather like the issue of members of the British peerage. I am not quite sure what the current view is, but there are articles on many peers of past centuries, some of whom may have had limited notability. ON the other hand we deleted articles concenring the family of a Greek royal princess and her husband and children (or possibly merged them into one article. While Maharajahs have lost their political power and been deprived of their privy purses, I am not clear what status they have today in Indian society. I would suggest that articles should only be created for those who can establish notability other than by parentage. However, we might have articles dealing with whole families. no vote as such. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discering the niche of present day Indian royalty and comparison to British peerage are very appropriate discussion to have. Per this discussion though, the individual under discussion has yet to be proven notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking to back up any claims to notability. As such, this article does not meet Wikipedia standards for Verifiability, Notability, and Reliable Sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability demonstrated (nominal nobility is insufficient), and the absence of mention in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - appears to be a real noble. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I added some references, and I think that notability has now been demonstrated. If an article seems promotional but the topic seems as if it might be notable, it is better to fix the article than to delete it. In this case, the article does not seem unduly promotional. --Eastmain (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The three items from TMCnet and the single item from Wireless News are all secondary sources. --Eastmain (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Two of them make no mention of MBG anywhere. I didn't bother to check the third one. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That statement is just plain wrong. Use your browser's find function to search the articles for MBG. Note that two of the four articles mention MBG is their headlines. --Eastmain (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the two I looked at are just invalid to establish the company's notability. If you have to use a find function to see that the article mentions MBG in passing, then the article cannot be used to establish the company's notability. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked at the references, which are enough to make me strike my "speedy A7" !vote above. But what we have is (1) the company has passed an audit (2) report of a press release (3) it's a founding member of a trade association (4) it has organised a survey - statement from the director of marketing. I don't find that really up to the standard of WP:ORG which says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." and excludes "Press releases... and other works where the company... talks about itself—whether published by the company... itself, or re-printed by other people." JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a tech services business that fits the profile. As JohnCD points out, the supplied references aren't really independent of the business; and they aren't in general interest publications, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable startup spam Llamabr (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is established through the news references listed in the article. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 20:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLots more at Google News. Article was written by an established editor and seems to be a good faith contribution. It doesn't read like an advert or anything. Zagalejo^^^ 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please stop tagging/deleting stuff that doesn't deserve to be, Llama, it's becoming annoying. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 23:03, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I disagree with the nom's assertion that it is crystalballing, as the complete Olympic schedule has been released and the order of events can be verified easily. However, Wikipedia is not intended to provide a day-by-day list of events like a TV guide, and therefore this article should be deleted. I'm actually curious as to how the article's creator was intending to display the results of the events, particularly some of the more complicated ones. At least with association football there are just two teams competing and each match ends with a simple scoreline! – PeeJay 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair call. Not necessarily crystal balling but is this a sports almanac? No. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on the article's discussion page: "The idea isn't to record the results for each event here, but to allow reference to the different events per day. Imagine a user wants to know, at some specific time during the Olympics, what events are taking place at that time. how would he do that? You can't expect him to search through all of the event articles...". I've improved the article a bit to make my intention clearer. Almyajid (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question "Imagine a user wants to know, at some specific time...". That user can go to the main 2008 Summer Olympics page and find the link Olympic Games Competition Schedule. Once the 6th of August is over (in 5 days time), will the user ever need that information in that format again? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 11:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of course, but I would encourage the author or authors to explore Wikinews for their enthusiastic efforts!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) delete. We don't need the redundancy when we don't even have a hold on the pages we already have! Jared(t) 20:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One has nothing to do with the other - this is a reference page to the result pages. Almyajid (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However this could be the attempt to create a series of articles. BTW in response to the comment below, I say it was proper process to bring this to AFD. I don't see the article as one that necessarily justified a speedy. 23skidoo (talk) 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please WP:AGF. There's no reason to think otherwise. Moondyne 03:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are in fact right that this was an attempt to create a series of articles. As suggested, and shot down by me, here on Talk:2008 Summer Olympics#Calendar, users suggested such pages as an alternative for the calendar table on the article page. Long story short, if we see a problem, we should probably salt, but maybe hold off for now. Jared(t) 03:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Obviously my intention was to create a series of articles, but the reason I created only one to begin with was to see what people thought. I wouldn't create the rest if the first was deleted... Almyajid (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rambling Man, you didn't have to bring it here, you could've just speedy deleted it. --Meldshal[T]{C} 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under what criteria? He tried to WP:PROD it, but the author objected, so AFD is the next step. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 20:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod plus a good faith editor, so no, I won't quick delete. But thanks for letting me know how you deal with new editors! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrwsc and others. For past Summer Olympics we have pages for each group of sports (Athletics, Cycling...), each event (100m, 200m...) and pages for the medal winning athletes themselves. We don't need pages for each day as well. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article name changed to the above.
Well, I seem to be out-voted. I'd still like a good answer for my question in the article's discussion page. Almyajid (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELETE is not a voting system, so you still have a chance to put forward your case. We can consider any points/questions you raise here - that is what this deletion discussion page is for. Can you explain what the article provides that can't be found in 2008 Summer Olympics and Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you're totally crazy, man :-D --necronudist (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate your enthusiasm Almyajid, but this kind of article has no place in WP. It is overdetailed and redundant.--Latouffedisco (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a perfectly good topic. The Olympics are a hugely notable event, and having an article for each day is a reasonable way of organizing the content, which should be detailed. Everyking (talk) 09:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If, hypothetically, this article were to become exceptionally long, yes, it would make sense to break the content out further. That's how summary style works. Everyking (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have every confidence that the Olympic coverage can be carried out thoroughly at the discipline by discipline breakdown. It seems as though that any day by day coverage will ultimately be redundant, and historically less useful (as in five, ten years, no one will recall what events happened on what day of the Olympics, so any day by day articles would ultimately be obsolete). matt91486 (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are enough secondary sources to make this particular technique notable. What we have are a number of primary sources from fringe advocates in minor journals and a mention on a debunking website. I tried to find sources that indicated this technique was widely used, but all I found was promotional websites and no secondary sources that established any sort of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this article recently, SA? It's been cleaned up and re-sourced substantially in the last few months.
Weak support - Actually the bulk of the article currently is made up a self-published debunker and research not specifically about the topic at hand. There is some discussion from a reliable source (Australian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy), but it may not be enough to warrant an article. -- Levine2112discuss 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Stephen Barret down below the sources from medical journals which are nearly as harsh in their dismissal.
Weak Keep Between Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology and Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, we probably have enough reliable sources to have a brief article on the subject, though certainly not a long one. It would be worthwhile upmerging if there was somewhere it could go. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
question do we have any sources saying anyone is actually using it, or is the article entirly devoted to saying why it doesn't work? Not everything that is disproven is notable. DGG (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reliable sources independent of the subject matter and each other exist to convince me that this is a worthwhile article for our project. If nothing else, someone who may be considering this treatment can use this article as a jumping off point. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This technique is being used and is controversial enough to warrant attention here. We already have enough sources to justify keeping it, and it should be possible to strengthen the article with even more sources. -- Fyslee / talk 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Minimal academic sourcing, but the ASCIA refs knock it over the notability bar by providing just enough out-of-universe description for a neutral article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in its current form. The fact that this has been introduced as a "discovery" and roundly debunked by the medical community is worthwhile information for the encyclopedia. This has the incidental happy consequence of reducing the motivation to produce an 'uncritical' article on NAET. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a standard method. The ASCIA article referred to a proving notability for this says: "Allergy elimination techniques (also known as advanced allergy elimination and Nambudripad's allergy elimination in some countries)." So in the present form it would appear to be an advertisement for one practitioner. If kept, move to Allergy elimination techniques, and rewrite to de-emphasise the name.DGG (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self-published author. Speedy was declined due to obscure awards. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The obscure awards do not hold water if they (and the subject at hand) have not been recognized by reliable sources. RFerreira (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I suspect COI. Deb (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Deb, and not notable. Awards aren't major, aren't referenced. IceUnshattered (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Paste (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a vanispamvertisement.--S Marshall (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses, WP:HEY. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of additions made by DRosenbach. I invite other editors who have opined to delete to take the article under fresh consideration. It's proper to propose an article for deletion when notability hasn't been established, but it's great when an AfD debate results in improvments and address of issues rather than deletion. - House of Scandal (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination the subject does not pass WP:BIO and lacks reliable sources necessary for biographies of living persons.RFerreira (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of recent changes. The article has been transformed into a near-speedy candidate to an article which conforms to WP:BIO guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsourced material is to be cited as needing sources -- not deleted. Articles mustn't be required to be fully stocked at inception. Rabbi Tatz is extremely notable in his field (Orthodox Jewish outreach), and as the "allegations" made by the as-of-yet unsourced material is not nearly besmirching him, there is no need to rush in and save him from being touted as "originating from South Africa." Nearly 1,000 Google hits for someone makes good promise for content that will be added as the stub naturally grows. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 05:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To respond to "DRosenbach" it appears that sources have been requested since August 2007. 12 months ago. I think we've all waited long enough. They obviously don't exist, time to move on. JBsupreme (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how long it's been a poorly written article -- it is now substantiated. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 15:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submit for an 11th hour respite -- this is the first time I have even come across this article. There is now independant, third-party information establishing his popularity as a worldwide speaker, being invited to speak at research seminars in London, Switzerland, at NYU Medical School and more, and is the founder of the Jerusalem Ethics Group. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I haven't examined the version that was nominated for deletion but the current version adequately establishes notability. JamesMLanetc 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is redundant to Goth (novel), an unnecessary split; prod removed in favor of a merge, but there is nothing here but plot summary focused on the manga version; delete in favor of expanding the main article with a character section that is focused on the novel and well written Doceirias (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable breakout article assuming "Goth" itself is notable. Also, I don't understand why you are asking for a deletion when you think this information belongs in the main article. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a reasonable split if length justifies it, which it does not. I suppose I could have simply replaced this page with a redirect to the main article, but since no one in their right mind would ever search for the character article first, it seemed unnecessary. Doceirias (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. What little information that is not covered in Goth (novel), can be condensed and added. smooth0707 (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, isn't that a merge and redirect? Hobit (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The main article is short enough to contain everything in the character article without issue. I don't see why you needed to take this to AfD, niether article has ever had much work done on them so no one would oppose if you took a step forward to improve them. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not requiring a separate article as for length, per suggested guidelines for handling this sort of material; as part of the merge, rewrite the material to be media-independent -- easy, no? (Speaking as the deprodder.) —Quasirandom (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So for future reference, on this sort of thing I could have just been bold and replace the page with a redirect? Will remember that. Feel free to close. Doceirias (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In some cases a simple redirect may be insufficient; you could have either merged it directly (followed by the redirect) or added Merge templates.—RJH (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What got me confused is that there's nothing here to merge. Obviously, I would have gone with a merge tag if there was anything worth keeping. Doceirias (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Hardly any of that content is salvagable, so as per my comment above, there is little to save. smooth0707 (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not enough content on either page to justify there being two seperate pages, but no one's made any good case for deletion over merging and improving; this AfD seems kind of confused. Gelmax (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD was based on my improper understanding of procedure; apparently, I should have made this page a redirect. At the moment the AfD is just waiting for someone to make a procedural close. Doceirias (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. If the concept exists, the article should be under the term by which the vast majority of people refer to it. Looks like this is not the case here. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:31, 31 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, jj137(talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Notability proved — Nominator withdrawl. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sillyfolkboy took offense that a reference was added to Bruce Springsteen's article about Max's Famous Hotdogs and The Windmill (hotdog stands). What Sillyfolkboy does not realize that both are iconic restaurants going back some time in Long Branch, New Jersey, have been publically mentioned by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band.
As far as hotdog restaurants go, both establishments are signficant and worthy of mention (there are approximately 40 hot dog restaurants with articles on Wikipedia). Both Max's and the Windmill are variants of the Jersey Shore Kosher style hotdog and of the New Jersey style hotdog, which is widely recognized. As for the controversy between the Windmill and Max's, it was recognized by the New York Times. Queen of Dogs The deletion proposed by Sillyfolkboy is not warranted. AnibusHeatus (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is how i came across the article in question but without citation that this hotdog stand is notable enough for a wikipedia entry then it puts the article (and links to it from other articles) on pretty shaky ground. Please don't feel offended - these are just things demanded of every article to ensure that it is verifiable and encyclopaedic. Thanks Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no part of the article comes from this New York Times piece. Besides, the main gist of the piece isn't about the stand but the argument over who is the official "Queen of the Hotdogs". This article should be much more helpful for writing a wikipedia entry. Please only add information that can be supported by sources. In fact if the article is rewritten using this source i may be convinced to remove my nomination for deletion. Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The notability of hot dog stand (even a notable one) might be a difficult thing to prove. Nonetheless, proof is necessary, and the burden of proof falls to whoever wants the article to stay. What type of hot dog their product is a variation of is irrelevant. The article also contains what seems to be original research. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a post from Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band specifically mentioning the Windmill. This is from the Windmill's website. Note the white out just before the mention of the Windmill, which is a reference to the Windmill's competition Max's. [[35]] Here is the New York Time's commenting on the controversy between The Windmill and Max's over Queen of Dogs title. [36] I would also encourage you to link on Wikipedia's list of hotdog restaurants. If the Windmill (which is an iconic shore hotdog restaurant) is not worthy of Wikipedia, are any of the listings (beyond perhaps Nathan's)? Think about it. AnibusHeatus (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wrestle editors, wrestle articles. Rather than trying to prove how the article could be improved, improve it. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to prove notarity for wikipedia beyond what was done. I also note under Wikipedia Category:Hot Dog Restaurants, most are about the same level of detail and justification. Given write ups in the New York Times, mention by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Bands materials, I think the case has been made. Deletion is not justified. AnibusHeatus (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:WAX. Just because we have an article on other hot dog stands doesn't inherently mean that this article is warranted. It's entirely possible that the article on the hot dog stand in Grand Blanc, Michigan isn't warranted, even if it did used to be an A&W. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With that in mind, weak keep per the sources that have been added to the article. The NY Times article about an empire built on hot dogs is definitely substantial coverage, but it would help if more like it could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added another source - an in-depth article on the company available here. Jim Miller (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYT article describes it as "part of Jersey Shore folklore". Good enough for me. Zagalejo^^^ 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable - every restaurant thinks it is special - this one is not Peoplearecool2008 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Peoplearecool2008[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is unreferenced, un-sourced (I have tried to find some sources myself (and failed)), un-notable (per Wikipedia:Notability), orphaned but for a very similar page, and is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes. CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 18:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The majority of these issues cry for cleanup, not deletion. But non-notability isn't quite as fixable. - Vianello (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either a joke or absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Call it a joke or a hoax, there are no grounds to keep this nonsense. --Baba's camel (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced, doen't even attempt to assert notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is unreferenced, un-sourced (I have tried to find some sources myself (and failed)), un-notable (per Wikipedia:Notability), orphaned but for a very similar page, and is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typos etc. could be fixed, but this is either a joke or absolutely non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137(talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, no such beast, shouldn't be wasting more time on this. --Baba's camel (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Unsourced, doen't even attempt to assert notability. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Yet another self-promoting MMORPG with no sources to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per comments made in the previous AFD I took a look at the history and there appears to have been a large number of anon IP edits since the closing admins and others indicated intention to address notability issues. The article subsequently had a large amount of content removed, stubbing it. As I tend to be suspicious of the intentions of anonymous IPs, I'd recommend checking earlier versions of this article since the last AFD to make sure what's being nominated isn't a butchered version. No vote from me as I lack enough knowledge of the topic to cast an informed opinion as to whether to keep or not. Just wanting to play fair. 23skidoo (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per non notability and nom.Gearsof War2 21:11, 31 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. Tanǀ39 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, orphaned article. Contested prod. Article fails WP:N, zero 3rd party references. Lacks notabilty Should this be deleted or selectively merged to Ray Peacock? Rtphokie (talk) 13:22, 26 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, Jamie☆S93 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear if the nominator made an attempt to find sources. I've added sourcing to non-trivial mentions in The Times and BBC News. I also added a somewhat directory-like listing in Time Out London which at least serves to verify that the podcast production was brought to the Arts Theatre in London. More references need to be added (I honestly suspect they are available). Already, though, I think this is enough to meet WP:N notability guidelines. Keep. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This podcast has over 10,000 downloads per week during season. I would have thought this would be "notable" enough? A little confused as to why Peterkingiron has voiced an opinion on this as, from his profile, it is clearly of no interest to him. Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.68.40 (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I haven't seen any podcast notable enough for its own article. Alternately, merge into Ray Peacock. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Leonard(Bloom) 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept in Feb, has never had any references, company is redlinked, article does not assert significance. Almost an A7 candidate. Guy (Help!) 21:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 70k google hits ([37]) indicate this is not a fringe software. As was pointed out in the last AfD, this is a notable piece of software, used by many foreign academics in US.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Piotrus and the previous AfD. It would be nice if an effort was made to enhance the article, rather than erase it. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure would, pity nobody has. How long does an unreferenced article with no assertion of notability get? "Keep and imp[rove" works once, but if the "and improve" doesn't get done... Guy (Help!) 07:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it takes, is the short awnser. Your suggesting that we should now begin deleting topics that (by consensus) are notable but just havent been expanded upon yet? BTW, That was a KeepExit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Piotrus and Ecoleetage. (>O_o)>SomethingX<(^_^<) 17:46, 31 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, Jamie☆S93 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a niche product: a web-based tax return preparation system for nonresident aliens connected to the field of higher education in the United States. Nothing at all in the article suggests that it meets either the guidelines for products or for web content - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete In a response to the above comment, eventually it does become appropriate to delete articles which are unsourced but which could theoretically be sourced. If we hope to adhere to WP:V and WP:RS (excluding WP:N for this case), we should expect that sources be provided for claims AND topics. Wikipedia will never be finalized but it is not a stretch to assume that it should be started at some point. If no one is willing to step in and provide an independent, reliable source covering the subject, why should it stay on wikipedia? I'm only leaning toward weak delete because there isn't a clear policy demanding this action (contrasted to WP:BLP). Two AfDs and no sources should raise some red flags. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was article redirected, and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 21:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks folks I will be bold, redirect and withdraw the Afd nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. GutzaTT+ 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Sporting Pitesti is not even a club but a football school and then there's the notability question. How can the player be notable if the school is not even notable enough for an entry on the Romanian Wiki? De728631 (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created by a user who has no other contributions and whose username is Tutty91. And Tutunaru is born 1991. I guess this is pretty clear now. --GutzaTT+ 18:09, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER. At this point, writing an article about this is still speculation. Besides, half of the content is made up of rumors. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 18:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. I'm pleased to see that's really gaining popularity. Seriously, there's nothing here but rumor mongering. Stop it before it spreads. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, and all those other ones we quote from in times like these. Good on ya TPH. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 18:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Make the article when we actually can reference the album's name with a reliable citation, and have some references, not just babbling speculation. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needn't be created until the final matches of the 2008-09 season have finished and we know which clubs will actually be in the league. пﮟოьεԻ57 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Number57. GiantSnowman 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Appears to be non-notable release by band which doesn't pass WP:BAND(and is redlinked). PROD removed by author. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added now non-redlinked band which fails WP:BAND...
A7 the band, and speedy delete the album per WP:IAR. There isn't a shred of notability on the band's page (the only good source devotes one whole sentence). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 18:51, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No much information is known about this upcoming season, and the article is full with "TBD"s and red links. Better article will be writable only in few months. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needn't be created until the final matches of the 2008-09 season have finished and we know which clubs will actually be in the league. пﮟოьεԻ57 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Number57. GiantSnowman 16:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, speedy deleted under G4 as it was a recreation of deleted material. AngelOfSadness talk 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article's subject is currently a candidate for an election, with no claim of notability beyond that. Per WP:POLITICIAN, people only notable for candidacy in an election are not notable enough to warrant an article. No bias against recreation if he wins the election. TN‑X-Man 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at present Mayalld (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established per WP:POLITICIAN. Mark Clarke's RS coverage comes from being a prospective candidate for the past 13 months. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about this individual was previously deleted via a deletion discussion when named Mark Clarke (politician) (AfD here). Gr1st (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per this information, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion G4, recreation of deleted material. TN‑X-Man 18:29, 31 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 per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a made up term. No sources in the article support the existance of a "faux cyrillic" typography. Tagged as being pure original research since April. A primary editor appeared to agree with this assessment on the article's talk page. A Google search produces 690 results for "Faux Cyrillic" typography, but most are from sites using Wikipedia content. Fails WP:OR, WP:NFT, and the example section fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 16:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is by analogy with the faux Chinese typefaces sometimes associated with cheap Chinese restaurants in the United States and Canada, with Roman characters made up of strokes of varying widths, designed to resemble Chinese ideographs. The term may be uncommon, but the typographic usage is well-documented, as shown in the article. --Eastmain (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The phenomenon undeniably exists and is undeniably notable. This search finds hundreds of references even after references to Wikipedia are screened out. Google searches for phrases like "fake Cyrillic", "mock Cyrillic," "mock Russian letters", and similar phrases also produce many results. —phh (t/c) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its probable existance doesn't mean it is notable. Please provide actual, reliable references providing significant coverage of "Faux Cyrillic", that does not include wiki mirrors, forums, etc. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever it is called (and "faux Cyrillic" isn't necessarily ideal), it exists. The article name can be improved as can its content, but that is no reason to delete. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its existance doesn't mean it is notable. Where is the significant, third party coverage in reliable sources? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 21:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are reading only part of the notability policy. It continues:
it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. (WP:Notability)
It is quite likely that some typographic source has discussed the use of Cyrillic-style letters in English-language (and other Roman-alphabet) contexts and that it simply hasn't been found yet. --Macrakis (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After 4 years, you think some are suddenly going to pop up, despite none being found in any google searches and not a single person saying keep providing a single reliable source to even validate the claim that such phenomenon is called "Faux Cyrillic." ? -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google search is not the be-all and end-all of research. The phenomenon may well be discussed in the middle of chapter 23 of some typography or design book, or in a political science study of symbolism in the Cold War or whatever. There are many WP articles that have been around for years without reliable sources, when a few hours of library research can actually add useful things. As for the name, it may well appear under a variety of different names and there may not be a standard name for it. --Macrakis (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books do a pretty good job finding the word in the middle of chapter 23 of some obscure books. :P Of course, being a two word mention in the middle of a book wouldn't make it anymore notable. Considering no one can even prove there is a single commonly used name for it only confirms that it is WP:OR and personal opinion. Again, where are the reliable sources. If there are books on it, it would exist.-- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The libraries should burn their books. They are all scanned and indexed and artificial intelligence will find everything you want even if it doesn't have a standard name. NOT. --Macrakis (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be facetious (and no one better dare attempt to burn a book in front of me!) Nor are books scanned and indexed by AI, this isn't Star Trek. Back to the topic without the silly sidenote, without sources, you ca't even claim such marketing ploys are, in fact, "faux" anything, nor have a valid name for the article. You don't get to just make up a term and stick the article under it while waiting four+ years for there to actually be a standard term for it. We aren't in the business of declaring future notability and then just waiting for the world to catch up. If it is notable, again, where are the sources. The burden is on those who want to keep it to actually find something even confirming it is something notable and that this article does not falsely claim it is "faux" anything and beyond simple text stylization. Animal Planet's new logo has the M laying on its side. Will you call that "faux English" or call it what it is, a stylized way of writing the name. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that it exists is not enough. There are few references, none that indicate this has been covered in any depth by independent sources, and much of the article reeks of original research. ReykYO! 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article to provide a sensible place for material which started to litter a series of individual Cyrillic letter articles. There, it would have remained a nuisance of indiscriminate bits, continually reintroduced by various editors.
I suggest it remain in one place, prominently tagged as unreferenced, where it represents an integrated topic, and where we can keep an eye on it until hopefully a reference presents itself. —MichaelZ. 2008-07-31 23:03 z
Keep The provable widespread existence of something makes it notable. But there does not seem to be any standard terminology. DGG (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Was I the primary editor who appeared to agree with this assessment on the article's talk page?). Take a look at Global and Multinational Advertising, Basil G. Englis, Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994 ISBN 0805813950, 9780805813951 page 123 on the subject of the US vodka brand GEOЯGI. It's got an ISBN, so I reckon it's a kosher source. --catslash (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC). It's true that this book does not use the term faux cyrillic (or any other snappy name), so this is probably not be a recognized term. Is there a requirement that the article title as a whole must be a recognized term? Are Methods of computing square roots, List of coronae on Venus, Book of Mormon weights and measures, 18th Academy Awards, Languages of Arda valid article titles? --catslash (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this has some interest for people who would be interested in the topic. No need to delete it, even if it isn't properly sourced, or the article name cannot be agreed upon. V85 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written like an advertisement, but not sure if it qualifies for speedy. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very useful for International Cooperation on ICT Research. You shouldn't delete it. Thanks and regards, Mr Prior Vich — Preceding unsigned comment added by PARADISO-fp7 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete as spam. It seems like pretty blatant advertising. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads like marketing collateral, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) as marketing material aka spam. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleteDemo 2002, no need for a disambiguation with a single target, and not a single keep vote neither. No consensus (kept by default) for Demo 2002 (Orcustus album). So I, as editor, boldly removed that section from Orcustus - Nabla (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going for the 3rd round now: There are many bands that have released demo albums in 2002; but none has turned up yet that passes WP:MUSIC. The album by Orcustus, co-nominated below, is self-released, first in 1.000 copies, then (again self-released) on the Internet; and none of the sources quoted discusses this album in detail. Therefore, both the album page and the now obsolete disambig page should be removed. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more references to the Demo 2002 (Orcustus album) article, including reviews and an interview. I hope this will be enough so that the article is not deleted. Bulgakoff (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not notable and dab page unnecesaary. Insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to keep the Orcustus demo - can be adequately covered in the band's article.--Michig (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The number of links seems impressive, but the quality of the sources is rather the contrary. I browsed through them, and most of them are directory listings, private homepages or minor websites, user-generated content, or interviews that mention the demo album only in passing. For mentioning it in the band article, it's fine, but I don't see that the demo album as such is an encyclopedic topic. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated the Demo 2002 (Orcustus album) into the main Orcustus article, as it seems you have made up your minds about deleting the album article (which I still disagree on, but I'm not going to spend any more of my time finding references to no avail). Bulgakoff (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Michig's reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussions of what to name the article can take place at the talk page. Wizardman 18:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is personal rumination on an old adage - not an encylopedic subject. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.Keep.Move to offense as defense. I was going to try to defend the article's existence here, but then decided, the best defense is a good offense; hence I should work on improving the article instead. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment. Personally I'd say that Wikipedia is not a usage guide applies, and am looking forward to seeing whether you can convince people otherwise! TrulyBlue (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc., should be used," but I think it is okay to describe how notable adages are used. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think this is the most viable option. People throw this cliche around a lot, but there's not a whole lot that can be written about the phrase itself. The concept, though, could be the subject of a lengthy, well-sourced article. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not such a great article yet, but the subject of the well-known expression and how it has been applied is a worthwhile topic for an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interested not ready to say keep or delete yet, but willing to watch the improvements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would definately not merge it due to the fact that the phrase is not military-centric, much less than military-specific. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - To "Offense as Defense". Interesting article that I think has a ton of room for improvement. Offensive (military) is a terrible article and doesn't really fit. If we want to merge I suggest military strategy or strategy but as pointed out, the concept of "offense as defense" has many metaphorical uses outside of military strategy. I think its worthy of its own wikipedia article, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and this concept is an important part of Western philosophy when it comes to the idea of "strategy". 74.92.148.250 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pretty obvious keep if the following is correct: The Best Defense is a good offense is an Adage with some notability. If that is correct the presence of the Category:Adages (which I added to the article) and the 61 articles in the category doesn't say KEEP then I am missing the point.--Mike Cline (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in the minority on this, obviously, but this article is crap, regardless of whether it's about a good topic. Essentially, it implies that Mao Zedong, or Sun Tzu, or Machiavelli originate the phrase, using sources that says no such damn thing. Other than that bid of nonsense, the article is mostly about mentions of the phrase in discussions of how to play the boardgame "Risk", or sports like soccer or basketball. Looks like a keeper, by popular opinion; maybe someone can add something intelligent to this dopey excuse for a page. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you're not giving me a barnstar for my work on this? I feel ripped off. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic; although I'd favor re-naming and extensive clean-up. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (conditional) - It seems the article is more about the application of the adage than the adage itself. To be encyclopedic, it should explain what the phrase means, the history, and only then an example or two. If the article could be brought up to the standards of, say, Godwin's law or Murphy's law, then I'd suggest keeping it. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you describe it as "crap" in your edit summary. Does this mean you're not going to give me a barnstar either? Well, as they say, justice delayed is justice denied, and I would hate to delay my getting my just reward any longer. So, I decided to take the liberty of awarding it myself.[38] Sometimes, if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself... Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell if you are being sarcastic or not, but awarding yourself a barnstar is considered bad form, and I certainly regard it as cheap. Perhaps you could shift your efforts over to taking these comments as constructive criticism and editing the article. bahamut0013♠♣ 20:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This means war(Slaps Bahamut across face with white glove) For these offensive remarks, I challenge you to a duel. Or will you cowardly decline, making some excuse such as "there's no way we can duel online and I don't feel like buying a $1,000 plane ticket to come fight you?" Would you dishonor yourself by slinking away so ignominiously? As for the article, why don't you improve it? I did all the work of creating it, for which I have quite rightly earned several barnstars now. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
he does have a good point however, it is bad form to award yourself stuff (is true generally in life, not just here on wikipedia). I wouldn't comment on it but you have listed a whole heap of them on your userpage all from yourself. MathmoTalk 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, currently not a great article but that has never been a reason for deletion and I'm completely sure that given time it will become a very worthwhile and satisfactory article. It is very well known. MathmoTalk 04:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Concern was "Nonsense, this is probably an attack page." Highly unlikely to be a genuine scientific breakthrough. DeleteJonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also there are no sources to prove discovery. DeleteBishop11 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a joke. If real then article could be written anew. I noticed that no scientific name was given for the newly discovered species. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, without sources there is no way to prove this is not a hoax. RFerreira (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no prejudice to recreation post-publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal. But I doubt that will ever happen. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see above Averell (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per WP:MUSIC#Albums, demo albums do not generally warrant an article; there's no evidence that the present album is one of the few exceptions. PROD was contested with comment: "Object. Legitiamate physical release" I agree that the release is both physical and legitimate. My concern is that it is not notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as demos are only "notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources". LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web designer. A Google search (which I am aware isn't the *only* way to find out notability) returns nine results. Article's main contributor is User:Bennydh, so conflict of interest is obvious. I don't know how valid his claims are, either: A Google search for "Ben Israel" and "Aray Glenrock" only returns his Wikipedia article, as does most of the other 'projects' he claims to have worked on. This goes the same to some of the awards mentioned as well. This article was also speedied before as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no verifiability to any of the awards the article claims subject has received, even to the extent that the awards exist. The awards are the only real claim to meet the standard of WP:BIO. Note: the speedied version didn't assert notability, which this article does, so that is no basis for deletion; the lack of verifiability of the claims to notability is the issue. Darkspots (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Paste (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, lacks reliable and non-trivial coverage which is requisite for all living person biographies. JBsupreme (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Information about voice actors and the characters they portray are incorporated in the character summaries, either on the main article, list of characters article or individual character articles, as directed by WP:MOS-AM#Sections. Because of this, there is no point in keeping a separate "cast list" article and the list does not serve a useful purpose. --Farix (Talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's correct rationale and the example of other recent list-of-voice-actor deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all my recent prods and AfD comments on similar lists. —Dinoguy1000 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seems notable but if the other lists are being sliced and diced Delete - itMY♥INchile 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it serves a useful purpose because it gathers them all in one place. One could just as well argue that the List of countries has no purpose because one could simply look them up on the continental lists such as List of European countries. The notability is not in question, so I see no reason for deletion. Esn (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant information. This list is suitable in some Anime News Network, not in Wikipedia. And this article is for only anime/game fans. Another lists, such as countries, are for all people in general. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a WP:IDONTCARE? The vast majority of Wikipedia's articles are not useful to "all people". Esn (talk) 05:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So all of this is documented somewhere, right? -- Ned Scott 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A spot check shows the English and Japanese voice actors are. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that the Latin American & Brazilian actors are not... Esn (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this is relevant because? --Farix (Talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latin American and Brazilian actors are generally something of interest for the Spanish Wikipedia, not the English one, and if you really feel that it is important that visitors of the English Wikipedia are told who the Latin American and Brazilian actors are, you're free to add them to the character articles yourself. Gelmax (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, and this is only the latest in a number of redundant "list of voice actors" article deletions that have been going on for weeks; precedent supports the nom's reasoning, and so far no one's bothered to raise a good arguement against it. Gelmax (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was NO CONSENSUS. default keep momentarily. issues with sourcing noted, and it does straddle notability. I doubt consensus will be acheived this time round. I think three months will be sufficient and place a note on the article talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article's subject fails WP:N, WP:ENTERTAINER,WP:V, and probably a few more policies and/or guidelines. Those are the bare facts of the case. Additionally, though perhaps slightly less important is the single purpose nature of a number of the articles contributors where the only purpose of the accounts are to edit this article and/or add the subject to other articles. There is also the creation of articles for the apparent sole purpose of adding weight to the subjects notability, specifically Currents (Magazine) for which the subject is the "Director of Web Development. I've tried to work with the other contributors and even made suggestions on the article's talkpage. I've continued searching for things that may help the subject meet WP:N and WP:V but, without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWe are editing as we are told. They are all tru facts, and we have all refrences that were needed. Please reconsider —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.250.187.106 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep Well-written, thoroughly referenced article on a discrete, noteworthy topic of interest to our readers. Issues with editors are WP:PROBLEMS logically independent of the worthiness for inclusion of the topic. I see nothing of concern here. I will revise this point of view if compelling arguments are made to the contrary. Skomorokh 13:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I agree there are alot of references in the article they are predominantly primary source (including being covered by a magazine for which the subject works), non-reliable (youtube), or trivial, etc. It fails both WP:N and WP:VJasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep a poorly-written article from a Wikipedia perspective, but one that does provide sources to support a claim of notability. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see above about the sources. Please note I spent awhile trying to improve the article as well as trying to find proof of the subjects notability before coming here without success. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge with Love Monkey or whatever is his most important role. Non-notable person about whom I would say there's been little press in a source that meets WP:RS, as can be seen from zero google news mentions. [39] . The references given to provide the illusion of sources, are mainly websites. StickyParkin 17:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per extension of WP:NEWBIES please leave a note for the IP on top and the article creator how to find this content if the article is deleted. Seems likely that the subject's notability will rise with their acting career. Banjeboi 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/QuestionBanjeboi can you clarify what you mean? I've notified the creator and other main contributors of the AfD but, am unsure of what other notices are needed. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mean that if the article is deleted, showing the two newbies where the last version can be found might ease the frustration with the article being deleted for now. Banjeboi 14:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not sure how to do that and based on the articles history and other contribs I think there may be more than two newbies. Do we need to undertake this notification or does the closing admin? Also, when does the article need to be relisted for consensus purposes? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Zebulon Dread. I'm redirecting it for now, but all the stuff will still be in the history. Wizardman 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question if it is just a reprint of source material doesn't it belong at "wikisource" or something? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even a claim to notability. --triwbe (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this would meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikisource.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not sourced. And ditto Espirit15d's reply to Jasynnash. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question "guys" to be honest I only even heard of wikisource very recently and know nothing about the criteria and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not sourced, not well written. JdeJ (talk) 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zebulon Dread. This magazine was produced by what is evidently a notable South African street poet, Zebulon Dread, whose stub of an article could use more information. The article was sourced, but the contributor evidently didn't know how to follow through with external links. I've done a bit of cleaning (including noting the original source for GFDL concerns and removing deadlinks). If the article winds up being merged, I'll be happy to clean it further to fit better in the context of the biography, but I think there's usable information here that should not be deleted. I also think, since the poet seems notable, that the resultant redirect is useful in its own right, as it will point individuals searching on the publication to the poet. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete It's all too easy for people in Europe or America to decide what's notable for us in Africa. Googling an African street magazine and deciding on our behalf that because there weren't enough pages returned, it's not notable, is hardly representative, and perpetuates the immense bias against African content in the English Wikipedia. I live in Cape Town. The magazine was an institution - of course it's notable. I would be happy if the decision was made to merge into Zebulon Dread if necessary. Arguing it should be deleted because it's not well-written is entirely counter to the wiki way. If something is broken, fix it, don't throw it down the toilet. Greenman (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::I'm not saying it is or isn't notable but, does the article here need to be a word for word copy as has been pointed out numerous times to the creator? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC) sorry ignore that. The current article isn't the same copyvio thing from before. My apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zebulon Dread per above. I think the merger would fix the notability and copyvio issues in one go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No input in 2 weeks = no one cares if it's deleted. Wizardman 21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced, orphaned neologism. Is this a notable enough concept to warrant it's own article (if so, it needs to be referenced)? Should it be merged to podcast ? Or should it be deleted? Rtphokie (talk) 13:04, 26 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, Jamie☆S93 14:06, 31 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. The article does not need to be merged back into the original, because all content already exists in the history of David Miller (Canadian politician). Thus, the next thing to do is to take the material from this revision, edit it down to a reasonable length, and add it back in to the main article. Chick Bowen 04:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete op-ed POV fork from main article Mayalld (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This fork had been created as a result of the issue with the length of the main article. I know that there may be potential POV issues, but it can be fixed. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 14:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original article was over long, and POV. The solution isn't to take all the crud and dump it into another article. The answer is to fix the crud. Mayalld (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To fix the crud, we need more contributors, especially those who contributed to the main article. This deletion policy is like throwing the baby out of the bathwater; this article has some potential; despite being POV, it has 215 citations; one solution is to eliminate the POV to reduce the article's length to a more manageable size. This article was the indirect result of recentism, since the articles pertaining to former Toronto mayors are approximately the same length as the revamped David Miller article. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 16:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content back into David Miller (Canadian politician), and edit the material as required. There was no need for this fork to be created in the first place. CJCurrie (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fork was created, since originally, David Miller's article is four to five times as long as the average article pertaining to Toronto mayors or of most politicians. For example, the article on Mel Lastman is one-sixth the size of the newly-created sub-article. The size alone is the main justification for the content forking (systems with little processing power would have problems loading the original article or even this fork). The original size of the David Miller article is approximately 117 kilobytes. Since the forking, the main David Miller article has shrunk to a more manageable 27 kilobytes. The size of the forked article is still too large (92.4 kilobytes). The only way to survive deletion is to remove POV and reduce the size significantly. Even if it ended up being merged, then the information in the fork has to be trimmed considerably as well. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 22:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't believe the fork needed to be created at all. As I said on the Miller talk page, the proper course of action should have been to carefully edit the content of the original article (ie. streamline content in a sensible way, without tearing large chunks out of the piece). CJCurrie (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That I cannot do alone. I believe that the main contributors to the article should help me do so. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 01:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be me. I suppose I've put this off for too long ... CJCurrie (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurd concept for an article. If the size is the justification, then perhaps the detail is excessive.DGG (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the detail is excessive, but the article stays. There are many articles with concepts more absurd than this. See unusual articles. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—why should there be something wrong with a subarticle devoted to what a politician does while holding a major political office? I think that's quite a good idea for an article. The article is not too detailed; Wikipedia aims for comprehensive coverage. Eliminating notable content so that all the content can be stuffed onto one page indicates some very misplaced priorities. Everyking (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, since articles on the much more notable politicians have their own (and detailed) articles regarding their policies. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather unstructured mess. Useful content can fit nicely in 3-4 paragraphs in his biography; this is far too detailed. BiruitorulTalk 03:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it has a photo, but are tram & bus stops really notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles? It's just a bit of concrete with a shelter at the end of a tramway. There is now multiple similar articles on Wikipedia now about tram stops in Adelaide, none I would personally consider notable. Delete. Somebody in the WWW (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless I can also create an article about my local bus stop :) --Lester 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, although I expect this will be kept, given the precedent that every place a train has ever stopped gets an article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least a train stop usually consists of a major structure or building, often of historic significance. At a bus or tram stop there's nothing significant there. Usually less than a park bench.--Lester 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a good case for having an article about the Adelaide tram system. Information about notable new facilities like City West could go into that article. But to have an article devoted to one tram stop is misusing Wikipedia. I think this one might have been created as a joke. It is a very short article lacking in citations and fails to demonstrate anything notable about City West. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The tram stop has only attracted one news article that could be said to be directed primarily at it; even this one just discusses the solar panels. Only peripheral mentions elsewhere. It is certainly of more note than a bus stop and of less than a train station (in Adelaide at least). Perhaps in the future someone will write a book or news article about it but, until then, all that is verifiable is that it exists, is at the current end of the line, and has a solar power generator. - Peripitus(Talk) 04:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh - I expect the book to be an enthralling read. But what I'm really looking forward to is, (in ridiculously deep voice) "City West tram stop: The Movie" ;) -- MarkChovain 07:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will pay to not see that movie. On the serious side though this may well become a chapter in a future book. While researching Trams in Adelaide I discovered that tram aficionados do tend to write books about individual tram lines often with sections on things as small as tram stops....only time will tell. - Peripitus(Talk) 08:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the other Adelaide tram stop articles unless sufficient reliable sources can be found, which doesn't look likely. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contested PROD
A search for references has failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources in order to comply with notability requirements. This has included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals. Mayalld (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There might be no references to be found for "Europlopeet Club", but there are certainly some for "Euroloppet". Thus, I redirected "Euroloppet" to "Euroloppet Club". Boris Kaiser, 31 July 2008, 16:35 UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chick Bowen 04:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del. The issue is notable, but the person not sufficiently. Media personalisation of a story does not confer notability on the person, IMO. --Tagishsimon(talk) 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Her notability exists and is verifiable by the references to her made by the House of Commons, and Channel 5 news. Oneblackline (talk) 16:01, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Merging can be discussed through the usual process. Chick Bowen 04:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. In this case, notability is not reverse inherited. Ave Caesar (talk) 12:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because someone may not be notable by association, does not mean they are not notable themselves. This is an uncontroversial, historical, encyclopedic subject of interest to our readers, about which Google Books turns up sufficient material to write a decent, verifiable, non-stub article. Nominator shows no evidence of having done due diligence prior to resorting to deletion. Skomorokh 12:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect somewhere. Information is of historical value but, the subject doesn't have enough notability (if any) for a stand alone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google hits are nice, but does anyone know of specific books that discuss her life in detail? Since I looked at the article last time [40], a year ago, no sources have been added. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:56, 31 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.
Delete as-yet unreleased software, per WP:CRYSTAL. Unreferenced, and somewhat spammy Mayalld (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is released, it is just beta. But that's no reason to delete something, as some software (e.g. some ICQ versions) never leaves beta and yet has its own article. If the spam is removed and if a cleanup is done, I think the article can be kept. So#Why 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your point SoWhy - I have attached the proposed, rewritten article, in the discussion page.
--Itemirus (talk) 12:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the article once more - let me know --Itemirus (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, you aren't addressing the issue. Every reword just looks like another attempt to get the same unsubstantiated stuff about this product into the article in a different way. Unless you can get 3rd party references to this product, and the hype is removed (not tweaked to see if it will do this way, removed), I will remain of the opinion that it should be deleted. Mayalld (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being too picky on this matter - it's just a stub - i suggest you request for deletion the following stubs as well, because they all contain unsubstantiated and unreferenced stuff.
Keep. Even the most cursory google search returned results [41][42] which show the potential notability of this software, documented by reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what now? Shall we keep it? It has been improved even more. Can we remove the deletion tag? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itemirus (talk • contribs) 07:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pleanty of references listed here now Braindigitalis (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, it meets WP:SOFTWARE guidelines and has received multiple non-trivial coverage. RFerreira (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 03:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Regardless of the notability of the subject matter, Skomorokh's opening comment amounts to a personal attack against the nominator and is not appropriate for Wikipedia. To create such an article using "Martin Zweig Unofficial Web Site" as the sole cited reference is more lazy and disruptive than nominating it for deletion. It is not the responsibility of the reader to Google this guy. It was the responsibility of the author to incorporate the results of that search engine use as references for the article. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HouseOfScandal. I've gotten to the point now where I don't respond to personal attacks but that was my immediate reaction as well. --Ave Caesar (talk) 22:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was not a personal attack, it was a comment on the contribution rather than the contributor. I am not familiar with Ave Caeser's other work, nor am interested in denigrating it; I am happy to imagine they have done great things for the encyclopaedia and are a good faith contributor. Taking a torch to an article other people put time and effort into, without (apparently) bothering to do any research is, however, deplorable, lazy and disruptive. It absolutely is the responsibility of the nominator to research the notability of the topic, even more so when the deprodder has indicated exactly where the information has been found. I stand by my original comment entirely. Skomorokh 10:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it might contribute to peace and happiness, I should have suggested that Skomorokh articulate those concerns in a more genial manner rather than characterizing Skomorokh's comments as a person attack. Everyone here seems to be acting in good faith and there's no reason for bad blood. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I choose not to pull punches and expect the same in return. Regards, Skomorokh 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zweig's notability is very clear in the market, the bookstore, in the newspapers, and on the television.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Skomorokh's perfect demonstration about the notability of the subject. So#Why 12:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even close, as reflected by Skomorokh's cites. The nominator may want to check the edit history of articles which s/he may nominate in the future. Here, when the nom's prod was removed, the editor noted the large number of pertinent results from Google News. The article itself, while unreferenced, gives clear assertions of notablity, such as "Zweig appeared regularly on PBS television's Wall $treet Week with Louis Rukeyser and in 1992 he was voted into the program's Hall of Fame." XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references given. The nom had prodded it--it was deprodded with the comment:"(deprod quite notable, 178 gbooks hits, 588 gnews hits, many of them specifically about him)" . Given that, going ahead with an afd does look a little extraordinary. But why didnt the deprodder add some of those refs to the article as well, while he was at it? DGG (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Plenty of people are willing to advocate for the article yet no one seems willing to improve it. Note that I haven't opined that the article should be deleted. I'm opining that the onus of improving it falls to the those who feel this article belongs here. Rather than asking why so-and-so didn't add references, why doesn't someone who opined "Keep" walk the walk and fix the damn thing? BTW, I've adopted plenty of articles and saved them from AfD debates, but I chose not to adopt this one. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known enough as a television personality to merit an article, and unlike some television personalities actually has significant experience outside the television world. Fg2 (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tanǀ39 16:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These three self-promotional pages about the author Apexigod (talk·contribs), his real name Michael Sandefer, and his "music project" were speedied A7. He recreated "My Perfect Apathy" with the other two as redirects to it, which will stand or fall with it. Claims to have been featured on various radio stations and has just released an album, but the only references are a Youtube clip, Myspace, and the project's own website. This does not amount to "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable", or any of the other criteria of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. The author has been pointed to the guidelines, but is "getting sick and tired of you guys trying to deny me the right to be on Wikipedia" so I bring it here. It may become notable, but it isn't yet, and Wikipedia is not here to help him promote it. Delete.JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable given lack of references Thedarxide (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Easy call. Not externally notable. And (not the reason for my "Delete" vote), but "right to be on Wikipedia"? --Quartermaster (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "right to be on Wikipedia"...hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa...Ok, I've finished. Delete for failing to meet WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:13, 31 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 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn new art, ad. JJL (talk) 13:04, 31 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. Chick Bowen 04:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn new art, no sources, . JJL (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted. ➨ Ʀƹɗѵєɾϧ collects very sharp bread knives 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. At first glance, I thought it might be a speedy candidate but it's survived for months so I brought it here. A Google search on the band name with either band member's name brings up almost nothing. I see no mention of any released CDs or anything. Not sure how this survived so long. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete a7. I have tagged it Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 31 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. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling manager who just debuted a few weeks ago. -- iMatthewT.C. 10:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Techinally, He's a enforcer since he is a bodyguard, but delete anyway --Numyht (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this page. This man is in a current storyline with the wwe and we could expect him to become more involved and more famous as he continues to work with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.104.12 (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the point of deleting the article? In a month the PW project will decide that he has gained notability and will recreate the page. -- Scorpion0422 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, no notability is shown, and articles should never be kept on Wikipedia, "just in case" -- iMatthewT.C. 18:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plays a part (even if it is small) on a major wrestling show. D.M.N. (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So does Ranjin Singh, but his article was just deleted/redirected to The Great Khali. -- iMatthewT.C. 11:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hes becoming a major part of Smackdown Adam Penale (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the standard for notability vis a vis pro athletes? Is it something like "once you get in a game, you're officially notable by WP standards? If so, since he has been a part of Smackdown television, would that mean he's in? And is the standard different for actors and billed parts? 70.161.126.199 (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he was some 2-bit jobber a delete might be in order, but he's not, he's playing the same role Nash did in '94. A definate keep. (Sawyer (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also unsourcedand written like blatant advertising. -- Jeandré, 2008-07-31t11:49z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t10:33z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z, -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:48z
May fail the wp:RS requirement of Wikipedia:Notability (films) - I'm not an expert on the many new sources tho, but haven't seen an RS call the sources RSes. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z
Delete per Jeandré. Wikipedia is not IMDB. TruthGal (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Wikipedia is not IMDb. It is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."PC78 found sources to show notabilty, which the article lacked. Nom Mayalld's concern has been addressed. These sources and some judicious editing can be used to also address the concerns of Jeandré. Schmidt (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I have just done a quick job of it myself, using what PC78 provided... cleaning up the article's POV and adding external links. Please have a look and comment. Thank you, Schmidt (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know how reliable The Tribune and The Indian Express are - where are they on a scale from 10 (trusted newspapers of record) to 0 (small regional taboids)? If someone can show that the 2 newspapers are reliable sources (and update their WP articles' leads to show this), that should negate my vote. The 2 other sources don't seem to help with establishing film notability, and the IMDb entry doesn't have any box office or awards info. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-02t11:54z
Not being Indian nor being from India, I cannot answer to the reliabilty of those two publications... nor might a resident of Bombay be able to answer to the reliabilty of the Los Angeles Times. However, they are sources apparently are definitely read by their area's millions of viewers, and were offered to answer your concern of the article not being sourced. The IMDb was included only because it was supported by other sources. I am sure there are more sources out there. I'll see if I can find a neighbor who reads Farsi. I hope my own efforts to improve the style of the article were acceptable. Schmidt (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well... you provided your own answer in the links to the articles on Wiki. The Tribune has been publishing since 1881. No unreleiable regional tabloid has that record. The The Indian Express is an award winning paper that has been publishing since 1931. However, and in response to your question/suggestion, I have moved these EL's over to each of the two articles to further source each as being a major and respected newspaper in India, and as the links would indicate, the world: [46], [47], [48],[49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] Now that the two newspaper's articles have been updated to show them as being respected world-wide, I believe they should be accpted as Wiki:RS, and Wiki:N. And, going back up the chain, might you be able to accept them as sources showing notabilty for Mahaul Theek Hai? Schmidt (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A last word... I just spent a couple hours rewriting, citing, and sourcing the article. I invite any who voted for delete to take a look now and see it it stands up to scrutiny. Thanks all. Schmidt (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? I looked thru some of those links, and the sources at the newspaper articles, but none of them that I saw noted that they were newspapers of record, or regarded as particularly reliable. Some gave stats like establishment date or how popular they are which isn't relevant because newspapers change and tabloids are oftentimes the most popular papers. If someone can show that especially ref1: The New Indian Express is a wp:rs, my delete vote can be ignored by the closing admin. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t10:33
??? I saw nothing in the article in Wiki about The Tribune or The Indian Express that said they were not notable or that they were not reliable. Your delete vote was based upon sourcing and the article's poor style. I have addressed both your concerns. With respect, I do not wish to debate the fine points of newspapers in general and their reliability (or not) through the decades or centuries of their existance. You are welcome to prod their articles in Wiki, if you feel they do not belong. This AfD is about a film's article. I have sourced the facts. The film exists. It has been seen by millions of viewers. It has received a great deal of press coverage. The director is a widely respected and admired member of his field. None of these facts are contentious. notability has been established. Since WP:RS stresses that a source must be considered for reliability "in relation to the subject at hand" and that this "depends on context", I have met that parameter. The facts in the article about Mahaul Theek Haihave been verified. I am sure the closing Admin will look at the article as now exists HERE and see that it bears little resemblance to the one that was originally placed in AfD HERE. Thank you. Schmidt (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeandré, what exactly are you looking for with these sources? There is no "seal of approval" that makes an individual publication "reliable" or not. The relevant section of WP:RS simply states: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market. I'm not familiar with the Indian media either, but The Tribune appears to be a major Indian publication, and as such would seem to fit the bill. PC78 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "It is a major and respected Indian newspaper with a worldwide circulation." at The Tribune has 3 sources. The first 2 don't even mention the words "Tribune" or "Chandigarh". The 3rd has a link to [59] which states that it's "popular", not "respected". -- Jeandré, 2008-08-04t09:26z
My point is that it's a "mainstream news organization", there is no stipulation in WP:RS that we validate it via external sources. And nor should there be. Most news organizations have an inherant political bias, so you could probably discredit any source if you really wanted to. But that doesn't make then unreliable, i.e. unfit for use on Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 12:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that this AfD is about The Tribune, but I have just revisited that article to address the concerns of Jeandré. There are now 5 cites that specifically mention The Tribune or The Tribune Trust in relationship to Chandigarh or world publication. Of course, and back to this AfD, there are a number of cites and sources other than The India Tribune at the Mahaul Theek Hai article that address notability. Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Following additional edits, this is clearly well-sourced and notable. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The two sources cited at this time do not qualify: The first is just a site hosting pictures of movie posters (the sources of which are not clear - the site could be affiliated with the production company or the images could even be fan creations for all we know) and the second has nothing to do with the film at all (it is used solely to corroborate a statement about the production company). The issue is not whether the film exists, but whether it is notable. The article as it stands at the time of closure fails our standard criteria. KafzielComplaint Department 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Weak delete. Google search reveals little, but having no knowledge whatsoever of Nepalese cinema, this could easily be a case of systematic bias. PC78 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mayalld. Not a notable film. Every film ever shot in recorded history in every country in every language can't have its own entry - Wikipedia is not IMDB. TruthGal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly everyone voting for delete here has no knowledge films of made in Nepal. WTF are you voting on articles you know nothing about? 203.194.16.121 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous commenter has never before contributed to Wikipedia. His/her first entry here is to insult those of us who have voiced our opinion against this Wiki article. I suspect he/she is somehow related to the film or the creation of the article about it. TruthGal (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think we're entiled to marginalize an already small nation. BMurray (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we aren't marginalising a small nation. We are saying that the film isn't notable. You appear to be suggesting that we throw the notability criteria in the bin if a small nation is involved. Mayalld (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vatican City is an even smaller nation - any NN films of theirs we should add to Wikipedia? TruthGal (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence? We really need a bit more than your say so. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here we go again: The unsigned commenter whose IP address is 203.194.5.109 has never before contributed to Wikipedia. His/her first entry here just happens to be to vote against deletion of Ma timi bina marihalchhu. Just as was the unsigned commenter with the IP addresss 203.194.16.121. So I think two of the Keeps are suspect at best. TruthGal (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to everyone who has commented here, I think all of the "keep"s are suspect. No one so far has produced a shred of evidence that might indicate any notability for this film, which is really what we're discussing here. PC78 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's heaps well known. Plus I think it's the Yeti's fave film but don't have a citation because he's a mythical creation but he actually exists and I think my mom is having an affair with him and dad doesn't know but he's sleeping w/ his secretary which makes it semi-okay. But keep the article, the director is really well known in Nepal but references are in another language thus few GHITS Cumbot (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — Cumbot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep It's a popular film with a hit song in the soundtrack plus the first celluloid film in Nepal with Dolby Digital sound. Therefore notable! NEver yer PAL (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)Duplicate vote. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user has already !voted above, and appears to be yet another [[WP:SPA] on this AfD Mayalld (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No results came back on IMDB, which means immediate non-notability. Come back when this wins a Palme d'Or or the Oscars. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything either that shows why this film is notable. Also, perhaps a block is in order for the SPA/disruptive accounts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this film is really highly noteable in Nepal, then I would support keeping it. But we need evidence from WP:Reliable sources for this not the say so of editors or claims by the film promoters. These reliable sources could be in the Nepali language. It may also be helpful if an editor adds the name in the Nepali language (in the Devanagari script) the the article. I don't think IMDB is a particularly good way of determing the notability of a film from a fairly isolated country. Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've managed to find someone to add the name in Nepali but unfortunately it doesn't show any more results. This may not mean much since it's possible the a lot of the references are not online or there are other problems (e.g. a lack of indexing, using images instead of text) that mean relevant results are not in Google Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the reference in this article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm willing to presume that any film that is able to be shot in Nepal with 35mm film is exceptional enough to warrant notability within the national cinema. (Considering that IMDb does not list any Nepalese films from 2007 onwards at the moment.) Furthermore, the article's creator seems to have an excellent familiarity with Nepalese cinema, has family from there, and has a contribution history indicative of such. Without evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to believe that he knows the subject well enough to write about it from a more informed perspective than almost all other editors working on film articles. (Unless someone is ready to take a crash-course in Nepalese cinema.) Considering a dearth of editors interested in writing about Nepali film in English, I think it's imperative that we cultivate these contacts rather than summarily dismiss them for lack of our own perspective. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, what you are saying is that we should just ignore WP:V and allow WP:ORMayalld (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThat may be following the policy to the letter but you are violating the spirit NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policy says we must have sources. Do you claim that the spirit of the self-same policy is that we need not have sources? Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, people have said that, but where are the sources to verify this notability? Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You clearly have no knowledge of Nepali film. Nepali films have very little coverage on the internet so providing neat links to the Imdb is difficult. Primary sources can be found but it isn't as easy as a quick Google search. NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is correct, I have no knowledge of Nepali film. We have policies like WP:V for that reason, so that I, without knowing the subject can verify the article. Sources don't have to be on-line to be valid, but they do have to exist, and "I know about Nepali films" doesn't cut it. Just to clarify one issue though. Inclusion in IMDB doesn't automatically show notability. Their criteria for inclusion is much lower than ours. As such, if a film doesn't appear in IMDB (with its lower bar to entry), its claim to notability is going to be very weak. Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are you nominating articles for deletion on topics you are completely ignorant of? NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because I believe that the article is about a non-notable subject. Now, do you want to try and prove notability, or do you hope to derail the AfD by attacking me? Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an attack. I am truly curious as to why you are nominating an article for deletion on a topic that you admittedly have "no knowledge" about. NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, it wasn't you who immediately failed to assume good faith by calling the nomination racist? I don't need to know about Nepali film to recognise a lack of reliable sources for this article. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are written such that one does not have to be a subject matter expert to recognise a non-notable article Mayalld (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You're avoiding the question. Again, why are you nominating articles for deletion on topics you are completely ignorant of? Surely a better option would be to tag the article as lacking sources. NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users need not be familiar with a subject to nominate it for deletion. It is the responsibility of the article to show that it is notable by naming reliable sources that provide verifiabilty. If there is little or no evidence that reliable sources exist (as is the case here), then an article is likely to be brought to AfD. PC78 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User is clearly knowledgeable about Nepali film. Considering that the poster for this film has been found, there is little question that the film exists. The remaining question is whether the film is notable. The lack of Nepalese film industry info on this internet makes this hard to judge, but I think the few references I've found show sufficient notability to keep this around. The director of the film is one of the top directors in Nepal, and the production company is known for its lavish spending on films. I can't imagine that a film by one of a country's top directors, from one of its spendiest production companies, has not received substantial press in its home country. Perhaps if it hasn't been improved in some time this could be reconsidered. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly revisit this discussion in future. At the time of this comment, there is a reference to a news service story in the article. The hurdle of reliable sourcing appears to have been met. I'd like to see more sources, but I think that's enough to keep the article for now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A meditation practice. Clearly written up by people with a COI. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, promotional even after the direct spam-link removed, a Google search just turns up the same schoolofmovementmedicine.com website. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious COI. In the history, the creator wrote that they were doing it on behalf of the people running it. --SeascicT/C 13:36, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Myspace band. The line in the infobox "Labels: None at the moment" is a giveaway. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd even say CSD#G11 in this case, it sounds like a self-advert and I doubt much can be rescued to create a neutral article. And of course I see no notability asserted. So#Why 09:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a7? lacks any claim of notability per WP:MUSIC and lacks secondary references Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 31 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.
Hosting provider written up by an SPA. Are they notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep They may be notable (the Google test shows approx. 146k+ hits) but the article is written very POV. So I'd say keep after NPOVing. So#Why 09:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. I went ahead and stubbified it to remove POVness, so it's probably worth keeping now. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 15:07, 31 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 Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by NawlinWiki through CSD G7 due to one author requesting deletion/blanking the page. WilliamH (talk) 15:56, 31 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 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a synagogue in Kansas City with no third party references to prove WP:Notability. Was prodded, but removed with the rationale "110 years old, only Orthodox synagogue in Kansas City = notable". I don't believe that being the only synagogue/church/temple in a city makes somewhere notable, and can't see why the age is relevant - most churches in the UK are 700+ years old but that doesn't make them notable. пﮟოьεԻ57 08:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the first and oldest worship houses of its kind in the Kansas City area. Unfair age comparison between KC and UK, as KC is a much younger than the UK. about 1.8 million people in KC metro, only one synagogue? Yeah, that's noteworthy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant to be an age comparison, merely pointing out that age is irrelevant to notability. If it is so notable, could we have some third party sources, as I can only find 13 hits on Google, which is three times less than my local church in a village which has less than 1,800 residents. Also, it's not the only synagogue, its the only orthodox synagogue. пﮟოьεԻ57 13:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a stub that could use some fleshing out (like that's uncommon) but easily notable. Also agree that comparing UK and KC doesn't work here. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Only Orthodox synagogue in Kansas City" is indeed a criteria for notability, IMO. Also, the correct number of Google hits is 844, not 13. Khoikhoi 19:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure if "most churches in the UK are 700+ years old", but I know that the oldest synagogue in the UK is just over 300 years old. America is a young country, and Kansas City, Kansas was only incorporated in 1872. The synagogue is notable for its age and unique position in the religious and cultural history and life of the city. Jayjg (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Early religious foundations are notable from just that, as are other firsts. Note that the building is not that old, just the congregation. DGG (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if high schools are notable for being high schools, synagogues can be notable for being synagogues. The fact that churches in the UK don't have their articles written yet should not substantiate deleting this article which has been written. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs) 05:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided do not establish notability. To sum up: two mention the synagogue (once mention each) in the context of a bio on Rabbi David Fine. One mentions that the synagogue received a grant. One does give an overview of the synagogue- the Pluralism Project [60]. However, the Pluralism Project picks institutions not by their prestige or notability, but by their pluralistic tendencies. See their list [61]. In short, it's just another synagogue - at least, according to all the provided sources. --EliyakT·C 18:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eliyak: So for that matter could you please explain what makes any synagogue notable if not facts about its age, rabbis, actvities, mention in local media? For Jews and Judaism, synagogues are by definition the core and heart of any Jewish comnmunity and they are the main starting points of studying and knowing the history of any Jewish community. IZAK (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is an important contribution to the little that is known about the History of the Jews in Kansas (yet to be fully written) and as such it is automatically notable. Also this synagogue is in the heart of Overland Park, Kansas the most important Jewish community in Kansas City, Kansas and hence in all of Kansas. IZAK (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm a little dubious as to whether this person exists at all. His biography seems bizarre to say the least. But assuming he does, why is he notable? He doesn't appear on the IMDb at all, despite claims that he appeared in films and TV series. If he only appeared in the theatre as a child actor I'm not sure that qualifies for notability - the notability bar has to be higher for stage actors since they don't reach anywhere near such a large audience as film and TV actors. If he had a large corpus of adult work then yes, but only as a child? He would have to have been pretty high profile. And what did he do then? He went to work for a small college, wrote a few articles, mostly for local consumption, and got involved in some local politics without a great deal of success. This does not seem to make him particularly notable, unless it can be proved that his planetarium work (covered here in a few words) makes him notable.
Incidentally, this article was originally created as Thomas William Hamilton, deleted after an AfD, and has now been recreated using an abbreviation for the middle name, which is weird in itself. Does he really call himself Thomas Wm. Hamilton or was this simply an attempt to recreate a deleted article? As it stands, this article seems to be making a minor academic out to be far more important than he really is - his work looks impressive until you realise that almost all of it is of a very local nature. It also looks as if it may well be self-created, with heavy editing by another editor who has only worked on this article and articles related to it and seems to know a lot of obscure information about Mr Hamilton! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does look like a hoax: I have tried locating the ISBN and ISSN numbers mentioned in the article and they don't seem to exist outside of Wikipedia. If this article was deleted at AfD before, shouldn't the re-creation be a simple speedy? --Crusio (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it was dicussed. The previous AfD does not look to me to be particularly conclusive and the article has got plenty of references, although their veracity needs to be verified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks very much like a hoax. Yes, there are plenty of references, but isn't it "odd" that all of the citations are too obscure to be readily verifiable? --Orlady (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not a hoax. I happen to know this person. (I am not he and have never edited his article). And yes, he does use "Wm." as a middle name/initial. I take no position on deletion/notability as I have a COI, but see here for proof of existence. I can't vouch the veracity of most of the article -- it would be OR if I could -- but on the other hand there's nothing in it I know to be untrue.Xcvfgh (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thomas Hamilton apparently is for real.(NYT article). The issue in the first AfD is whether his credentials added up to notability. The big problem here is COI from Hamilton himself, who re-posted the article, and a former student who tried to fix it. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are still some WP:V issues here but even if all the info in the article is verified I don't see it adding up to notability under any of the notability guidelines (not enough here for WP:BIO and most certainly not enough for WP:ACADEMIC). Nsk92 (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete and (salt Thomas Wm. Hamilton and Thomas William Hamilton) I cannot compare this version to that previously deleted via AfD so I can't say whether a speedy is justified, but re-creating a deleted bio such that the new version is virtually indistinguishable from a hoax shows the problem). None of his books generate anything like a single measly google hit. The NYT mention of his name seems like the only WP:V source to confirm anything, but he still falls far short of WP:PROF (absolutely no evidence that his work has had a notable impact on the world of ideas), and clearly fails WP:BIO (as he is certainly not the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability seems to be forthcoming, and Pete's analysis clearly states the problem with this article. --Crusio (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax but fails WP:BIO and your can take your pick of any secondary criteria, esp. WP:CREATIVE. From a mirrored version of the old article[62], notability was barely asserted. From a closer look at current article shows many of the same problems, just better decorated. He seems to published mainly in the in-house bindings of the companies he worked for. No academic acknowledgment found, just Hamilton apparently citing himself. He is an engineer/scientist with an unremarked body of work. • Gene93k (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 03:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable stalker video shot by person not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry himself TruthGal (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, there is no real change from the 2006 article which has a AfD closed as "no consensus". I am certain that the arguments from the 2006 case are thus the same and I am with the ones who judged "keep" two years ago as I think the facts they mentioned have not changed. So#Why 08:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the article cites reasonable external sources, but in my opinion the notability is pretty weak. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the external sources are:
the video itself
an article talking about the content of the video
an article entirely in Hebrew which may or may not mention the video
a Egyptian soccer blog with no current reference to this stalker video
the blog of the guy who shot this video (and who is not notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia)
So that's really only one article about the video. So If it's the sources that are tilting you towards Weak keep rather than Delete, I would kindly ask you to reconsider. This is a Wikipedia entry based on one article. TruthGal (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A critical article about the content of the video qualifies as a non-trivial external source. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It has been mentioned in at least one source then. It seems to be notable enough. (The article in the Egyptian newspaper give it non-trivial coverage and I'm assuming good faith about the Hebrew article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, this is like if Wikipedia had an entry for the R Kelly video but no entry for R Kelly. Or an entry for Guernica but no entry for Picasso. If this is truly a notable "art piece" made by an actual artist, it would be included as part of the entry for the artist. But the Wiki entry for the artist has been deleted three times for NN - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nimrod_Kamer&action=edit&redlink=1TruthGal (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was judged by WP's standards of notability for films it would not pass the test. However it seems somewhat notable as an historic event which got some media coverage and comment. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess... if you define "some media coverage" as one article in one online newspaper. A Google search turns up no other English news media site reporting on the video. TruthGal (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change my vote to "weak keep" since the media coverage was rather weak. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadnt expected to say this--but the references are sufficient. sources for an article do not have to be in English. DGG (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Originally submitted for prod-nn, which was contested by page author. Unfortunately, this was done without actually positing any real response for the template's complaint. Vianello (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice. Just noticed this article was AfD'ed before. Submitting for speedy deletion under G4. - Vianello (talk) 06:41, 31 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.
Delete unless editor can come up with more reliable sources than one quote by the Australian Prime MinisterAdvocate 04:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meets no WP:ENTERTAINER criteria - actor's roles are all, so far as I'm aware, more or less inconsequential. No indication of media coverage (and having an IMDB page isn't about to qualify as that). Also at present unreferenced, and the only biographical information is copied and pasted (without attribution) from IMDB. These latter two issues aren't grounds for deletion. I'm just venting. However, the page author's refusal to remove the copied and pasted section (opting to just silence it and all other templates without actually addressing their problems) may constitute a copyright violation issue. I don't know what copypasting from IMDB falls under. Vianello (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing to meet the criteria mentioned above. The author of the article also has many other AfD discussions on his talk page. We don't need Wikipedia being junked up with utter nonsense, such as this trivial bit actor. -Jrcla2(talk)(contribs) 05:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not even an IMdB?!MY♥INchile 06:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. No, he has an IMDB page. Though nothing else. - Vianello (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actors of this individual's notability are not even seldom afforded articles. seems like a self-promo or obsessed fan fueled article, lean towards delete fails wp:bMY♥INchile 18:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Then you officially say that this should be deleted? -Jrcla2(talk)(contribs) 23:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If this actor does something significant, then the article can be re-created. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C2. I'm assuming the nom just missed it, since the references were already on the page before the AfD tag was added. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 07:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As the arguments above show, the claim of failing WP:MUSIC is not correct. Also, I cannot see COI problems and even if one or more contributers were in COI while writing, the article does not show it. So#Why 09:00, 31 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. I suggest a merge discussion begin on the talk page, as this is a split decision, and keep is only the default as there is no consensus. Synergy 03:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a short repetition of the plot of various Star Wars storylines, and is pure duplication. It should therefore be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to [[63]] or another appropriate list. Needs cleanup yes, and probably not enough real world info out there to justify a full article, but enough should be out there to make an appropriate list entry. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable character recognizable to millions around the world in that she has appeared in video games, cartoons, films, action figures, etc. Plenty of Google books and news hits to verify information and furether demonstrate notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Umbralcorax. Articles about minor characters are suitable in Wookiepedia, not in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, and with potential to be well sourced, expanded, etc. Plenty of mention in books, websites, etc. Cleanup is not synonymous with deletion. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't come close to meeting the WP:BIO notability requirements. Has not received significant coverage (if any coverage) in reliable sources. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 01:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Agreeing with that assertion. Maybe keepable when sources are provided. So#Why 09:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a week, still no sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep seeing as even the nominator wants the article kept. Please don't nom articles unless you think they should be deleted. Ty 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to bed, and can't be bothered to deal with this inanity, so I'm listing this here to appease Llamabr (talk·contribs), who insist on slapping CSD templates on it, until I can make it into a better article. Circeus (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several items at Google Books describe him as "renowned" or "internationally known", which is enough to satisfy me. Certainly not a CSD candidate. Zagalejo^^^ 05:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article's a perfectly acceptable stub, and enough mentions in reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability: see [65], [66], [67], in addition to the Google Books link above. Scog (talk) 05:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes notability with this search--more than 1,900 hits on him here The sources are museum sites, galleries, not just unreliable blogs. Artene50 (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly shows notability. I've had to undo some of Llamabr's taggings today. Howdoyouturnthison (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable as far as I can tell from searches. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
comment It does need a lot of work though to go beyond stub status. I might try to help out if I find some time today. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:36, 31 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 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. This is just like my previous deletion discussion for another heliport. I support deletion, but I'd support a merge too if a proper candidate can be found. A hospital's heliport is non notable. Undeath (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has its own airfield code, it is well formatted and sourced, all articles on places of transportation, airports, heliports, ports, ferry terminals, rail subway and light rail stations and bus stations are notable and of broad appeal.MY♥INchile 06:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The airport code means nothing. Not all transportation places are notable either, and no where does it state this. Also, this is not an airport, but a private helipad for a hospital. The article on the hospital is a better area for this helipad to be mentioned. Undeath (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all transportations places are notable, by precedent, the types of places i mentioned never get deleted, even proposes or planned transit places are notable enough for articles to pass WP:N for the vast majority of discussions. If there is not enough content, then we should merge with the hospital article if not or if that article is too convoluted already keep this as it is. who know's this hospitals heliport could be of note right?MY♥INchile 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Places of transportation do get deleted every now and then. This is a great example of one that would normally be deleted. It is a helipad for a hospital. That is part of the hospital. It, by itself, is non notable. There is no precedent about notability in the sense that every building or infrastructure is notable. Undeath (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this less notable then a train station or rail station? While those may be high volume transport facilities, these are low volume critical community infrastructure facilities that actually save lives. There is much notability associated with that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real world transportation facilities catalogued in government databases meet WP:RS, hence WP:GNG.
It, in no way, meets those standards. It is hardly a facility too. It belongs to the hospital for use by the hosipital's helicopter. There is nothing notable about that. Easily fails WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a particular reason you're replying to everyone who disagrees with you? Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why it bothers you? Undeath (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems contentious and unhelpful. Not everyone who disagrees with you needs a rebuttal, especially those of us who don't raise new facts or new arguments, and doing so clutters the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get used to it pal. Many AfDs include many, many rebuttals to help emphasize a point. It doesn't clutter anything up, and it's not contentious. It's what AfD does a lot. Undeath (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Helipads just take things to far. This "all transportions are inherently notable" standard that some editors are apparently proposing here would conceivably include parking garages. Merge/Redirect to article on hospital or Baker County, Oregon.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heliport not helipad, the helipad is not notable, although if it is a mass produced model the model may be, this heliport is notable, it might even have more traffic than some of the minor cesna only class airfields we automatically give articles too. we are not a paper encyclopedia so this has room here, someone may want to research all the skycraft landings / airfields airports heliports in a general area to compile a report, maybe a urban planning student, heliports have a history to them too. as for parking garages, i don't think there is a single article about one in wikipedia, nor have i mentioned it, parking lots are not transit places however, park & ride lots are since they are transit hubs supporting parking, taxis, bus station, ferries, bike shops, small commerce, greyhound, eateries, trails, bike baths, carpool, and other facilities. i wonder what the worlds largest parking garage size is, now that would be notable!MY♥INchile 03:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We could decide that such heliports dont fit the general conditions for important enough transportation facilities as a class, but until we do , w shoudnt be picking out individual ones for deletion. For any topic, we can adopt what guidelines we choose. DGG (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the cogent comments of our Chilean friend. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for notability has been made. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doc Strange. Does the article even assert notability? Maxamegalon2000 05:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Extremely non-notable web content; a small number of threads on a single message board which has over 200 open threads, on a site with thousands of message boards. No evidence of any independent sources and I doubt any would ever exist; the IMDb users have numerous message board games along this line. I have revised the article in hopes that at least readers can now figure out what it is talking about. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:56, 31 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 per G7, the author blanked the content outside the AFD tag. --JForget 23:10, 31 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. — Scientizzle 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unneeded list as all it does is give the years of different presidents during the reign of a Queen. The presidents have nothing to do with Queen Victoria and fails WP:LIST. Tavix (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unnecessary list, speedy delete.MY♥INchile 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it's a list that serves no useful purpose. What's next, a list of volcanic eruptions during the interminable reign of Pepi II? ReykYO! 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - aha - there is a WP policy that covers this sort of probably well-intentioned but pointless list CultureDrone (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please avoid from using ILIKEIT arguments, if you want the article kept instead use guidelines to explain it and not just that you like the article. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY Advocate 04:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advocate70 (talk • contribs)
Keep - This should be deleted, not my not-to-be-deleted Wondurful page. Tharnton345 (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Short, unreferenced articles about a production company whose only claim to fame is the creation of low-budget plagiarisms of major animated films. Articles do not explain why this company or these films are notable. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 19,300 articles about this company come back in a Google search. It seems like a company that's more infamous than famous, but there's plenty of talk on blogs about them. TruthGal (talk) 06:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Had to change my vote. Did further research. Three articles... have to treat each one on its own merits... Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Vídeo Brinquedo" and "Ratatoing", Weak Keep or Merge "The Little Cars". If a film is notable, I think the company that created it is notable by association. A cursory Google search reveals a lot of articles mentioning the company name, although few or none seem to be in English (which is understandable for a Brazilian company). Esn (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ratatoing and The Little Cars - I am undecided about the third. Both of the films have reliable sources, and both claim notability as being perceived as knockoffs of Pixar films. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another non-notable winery. Per WP:CORP I cannot find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.Withdraw now that appropriate sources have been added. Merzbow (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You should have placed a {{db-corp}} tag on it instead, in my opinion. Easier than an AFD for such things, and that article appears to qualify for speedy delete. =Axlq 04:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I prodded it, which was promptly removed without comment, so I imagine the same would have occurred to a CSD nom. Sigh... - Merzbow (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contested the prod. Sorry if you felt more commentary was needed, but I expected you to promptly take it to Afd so why bother? If you're going to sigh, I guess you shouldn't nominate things for deletion. I have it on good authority that this winery is certainly notable (while Quailhurst certainly is not). I'll see what I can come up with for references. Katr67 (talk) 05:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been more polite to wait until you'd found the references first before removing the prod. There's no rush with a prod, it stays up for 5 days. Doing things in the opposite order on a good-faith prod with no explanation (and on an article with no sufficient references) feels like a slap in the face, to be honest. - Merzbow (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way--that was not my intention. Happy editing. Katr67 (talk) 18:54, 31 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 and redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very limited notability, repeated insertion of poorly sourced negative information. Subject request in the OTRS system at ticket id 1742437. Thank you, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Haunted Liverpool, the basic info is already in that article anyway. Rationale on WP:Notability using google gets 6000 hits, looking at google news search gets just one, cant find anything in independent reliable sources where the subject is about "Tom Slemen" the hits are about his book mostly the Haunted Liverpool series. The article is all sourced from primary sources. I just cant find any reason when considering WP:BLPdo no harm ethos to keep an article about a subject of limited incidental verifiability thats a vandal magnet when the basic info on the Author is already covered in another article. Gnangarra 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to Haunted Liverpool I agree with this, the entire article is poorly sourced.Rjm (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This author does satisfy a bit of the secondary criteria on WP:BIO, but he does fail the primary criteria. I think some of the content should be merged and then the article should be redirect. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is some content that could be merged but with this case the OTRS issues should over ride the retention of article history which is required by a merge. Gnangarra 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the OTRS ticket should be a consideration, we really should be judging this situation on established biography policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find reliable sources that prove notability. Many sources online were for namesakes, and searching "Kailash Nath" with "Ashanti" yielded very few sources, none proving notability. SamuelTan 03:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way the article is written, I don't think it was meant to be published at all. It looks extremely Rough Draft-ish. This fish should be thrown back until it grows a lot bigger. TruthGal (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Googled "Kailash Nath" with "Ashanti" to find sources proving notability, found none that actually referred to this person. -kotra (talk) 22:52, 31 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. — Scientizzle 15:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could find no reliable sources online. 5 out of the 8 g-hits were Wikipedia-related. SamuelTan 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did the Google search as well and can't come up with anything indicating the article's claim that he is "famous." On the plus side, I checked and www.FakhirHiryanvi.com is available. TruthGal (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and TruthGal. Did own search, found nothing. -kotra (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because urdupoetry.com doesn't list him in their index of poets.[68] Google is not a good tool for Pakistani poets that died 30 years ago and I caution you not to use it as a reason for deletion if you cannot find anything.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was on urdupoetry.com, it would be on Google too, since Google has indexed the urdupoetry.com website (proof). It's safe to assume that if it's publicly available on the web, you can probably find it on Google (with a few significant exceptions). -kotra (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I did find this but it seems to have just the airplay charts for one station. I doubt that's the national singles chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure I know much about Greenland, but I would assume airplay in that area is combined with that of the parent nation Denmark. Nate•(chatter) 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. I also smell a hoax; considering that Greenland is Danish territory, you would think they would have some Danish songs on that chart, would you think? -- azumanga (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- definitely a hoax -- when the article was first created, he simply copied from the Australian ARIA chart; the article for Greenland originally began with: These are the number-one singles of 2008 in the Australian ARIA singles chart. On that note, I change my vote to speedy delete. -- azumanga (talk) 16:32, 31 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 18:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single. Hasn't charted yet, was just released a few days ago. No sources. (And how on earth did they manage to use the chart position field when that's been gone from the infobox for ages?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is personal website Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Neutral if the statements can be sourced, I think it should be kept as a notable song in 2Pac's history; but if not, then delete it. JuJube (talk) 13:05, 31 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, «Diligent Terrier[talk] 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, no consensus to delete and a merge proposal is an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure fanzine whose notability appears to be limited to its team supporters. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a rudimentary search for sources shows that both the nominator's claims are easily refuted: the fanzine is not obscure, nor is its notability limited to team supporters. It is included in both Adams, Duncan (2004). The Essential Football Fan. Aesculus Press Limited. ISBN1904328229., and Redhead, Steve (1997). Post-Fandom and the Millennial Blues. New York: Routledge. ISBN0415115280. It is referenced by The Belfast Telegraph, BBC News, The Sentinel and The Independent (A major, respectable broadsheet paper who even ran an article from The Oatcakehere, and a third reference here). In terms of relative noteworthiness, it is included in both an overview in The Mirror of notable fanzines here as well as the The People′s list of "101 Football Fanzines" (this is especially telling given that there are thousands of football fanzines in the United Kingdom). An encyclopedic topic, discretely defined, of interest to our readers, whose content is verifiable by reliable, third party publications. Absolutely no reason to delete. Skomorokh 12:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia standards clearly state that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The previous defence fails because all of the verifiable sources cited here are trivial and/or incidental. None of the references cited above are specifically about The Oatcake. The coverage cited in The Belfast Telegraph, BBC News, The Sentinel and The Independent focus on other subjects, with the fanzine mentioned in passing. The People's coverage is irrelevant – being one out of 101 fanzines does not suggest notability by any stretch of the imagination. Ditto the coverage in The Mirror – it is just part of a round-up of fanzines, which Wikipedia defines would define as "incidental coverage." I am unfamiliar with the two books cited, but in view of the verifiable examples that were presented I cannot put blind faith in their value. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNotability, which is what I presume you are referring to, is a guideline, descriptive rather than proscriptive of what people think/thought ought to be a criteria for inclusion and not a policy, and my argument above does not rely on it. I strongly disagree that the coverage The Mirror and The People is "irrelevant"; it is highly relevant that out of all the thousands of fanzines, they explicitly selected The Oatcake as noteworthy. The references in the other highly reliable sources are not exclusively devoted to the topic, granted; they do however go towards establishing the credibility and standing of the publication as an important subtopic of the independently notable Stoke City F.C.. The significant question here is not whether the article jumps through some arbitrary hoops, but whether having an article on this topic is a net positive for the encyclopaedia. I commend you for specifically addressing relevant arguments here (I wish all nominators were as balanced and thorough), but it would have been much more helpful of you to have included this analysis in your nomination. Sincerely, Skomorokh 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment back Not to be contradictory, but you are mistaken when you state "it is highly relevant that out of all the thousands of fanzines, they explicitly selected The Oatcake as noteworthy." No, the two sources you cited chose The Oatcake and scores of additional fanzines for their grab-bag best-of lists. That coverage is not relevant -- there is a big difference between being on a Top 10 List and a Top 101 list. And, again, the other coverage is strictly incidental (the articles only mention the fanzine in passing). I do not share your opinion that this article is of value to the encyclopedia, though I must offer my appreciation for your spirited and intelligent presentation. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the point that Top 10 is important while top 101 is not; surely the important metric is out of how many. Top 10 things I say in my sleep are probably not individually noteworthy, top 1000 monarchs almost certainly are. UK professional league clubs tend to have at least two fanzines (as in this case) and non-league teams often tend to as well; like I said, thousands. In the instance of The Oatcake, Stoke City regularly attract more than 20,000 people to their home games, and many times this follow the team on digital broadcasts; the team has a large fanbase, and readers are very likely to be interested in this article. This is borne out by the traffic statistics, which show an average of 4,000 views of the stub article a year, despite the fact that "Very few or no other articles" have linked to it since November 2006. [And on a personal note, I think the encyclopaedia is benefited by the addition of curious British Things generally, War of the Monster Trucks and Abandon chip! being exemplary (uh oh...).] There is very little chance that this article will be used to post material damaging to the encyclopaedia such as defamatory content, self-promotion, spam and so on. Again, in summary: verifiable, neutral, encyclopaedic content, of interest to our readers, and of negligible potential damage. Skomorokh 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The evidence given by Skomorokh are secondary sources at best; if the BBC.co.uk article was about the Oatcake it would be acceptable, but saying "this is notable because of a 3-line quotation about membership cards" doesn't make it a primary source or reference. Ironholds 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are secondary sources; this is an encyclopaedia, what do you expect? Would you rather the article was written on primary sources?! (pro-tip: it is) Who are you quoting? I'm sorry, but your comment makes no sense to me, could you please explain? Skomorokh 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i'm not too good at writing clearly. By secondary I meant the fact that rather than the BBC source being about the Oatcake it's about the football club and includes a quote from the editor of the oatcake; the quote was paraphrasing the argument that these sources put together lend notability when this source, for example, would only be good for a Stoke F.C article. Ironholds 17:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. Sorry, English is not my first language. Primary source and secondary source are technical terms; in this case the oatcake.co.uk is a primary source, the BBC article a secondary source, and my "evidence" as you term it a tertiary source. When paraphrasing an argument it's clearer to use 'argument' instead of "argument", and "if one was to argue that..." to avoid the impression that you are referring to an actual existing argument. For the record, I brought up the BBC as verifiying the noteworthiness and credibility of the zine, not it's technical notability. The notability guideline is just a guideline; in many instances it is useful but this is an uncontroversial topic (like villages, schools etc.) with no neutrality/spam/defamation issues, and enough verifiable material to write a decent stub. Regards,Skomorokh 17:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep being cited by major news organizations (even briefly) and making the top 100 list hint at notability strongly enough for me. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoke City F.C.. In my experience, most fanzines, although notable among football supporters (and not just of the club concerned) do not have sufficient independent sources to justify their own article. Unless more material can be found, then two or three sentences in the main club article should be sufficient. --Jameboy (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stoke City F.C.. I feel this fanzine is (just) notable enough as a topic to be mentioned, but perhaps not in its seperate article. GiantSnowman 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStoke City F.C. is already a very large article, and lacks a "fan" section. I'm not sure a merger makes sense editorially, and I'm not sure where it would fit in if it was merged. Hobit (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skomorokh. Tovian (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For your consideration: a fictional character that is supposed to appear in a book that is both unfinished and unpublished. However, images of this character can be found on the deviantART web site. This one hits the WP:N wall head-on. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definite shortage of independent sources in this one. —C.Fred (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No assertation of notability. Book doesn't have an article and isn't even finished yet. When the only links are to DeviantArt, you know you're in trouble. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 03:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball on its future notability. Artene50 (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Hopeless lack of sources. Google hits were entirely unreliable and useless. I don't think character will be notable even after the "book" is finished. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of verifiability or notability.--S Marshall (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete*blink* congratulations for the artist for appearing in Someone Else's dA News Post that got whole of +45 favs, and getting as many as 41 and 82 image views, respectively, for the two images featured so far. Charming, really, because articles like this do not end up in AfD too frequently - they get CSD A7 WEB'd, nay, CSD A7 WEB'd from the orbit, because vague comments about so-far-suspiciously-non-notable-sounding things and 9 Google hits don't make an article. So to retain the article, actual reliable sources that said there were actual major publications featuring this character would be terribly needed. Stuff that's so far only demonstrably of minor consequence just doesn't make an article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WTF??
Let me ask you this--
Check out the article "Power of the Dark Crystal" -- this is a fictional movie that was supposed to come out 2 (that's TWO) years ago, but has not only not surfaced, there is no proof that this work is even still in production. Other than a few articles about the movie, the returns on Google (good ones) are a joke, if you want to knock on the article I'm WORKING ON.
Plus my article is not finished yet. So you haven't given it a chance!
If you do delete this article, I know the guy who created Nyrva is a huge fan of doing parodies and satire- so you'll just be feeding him ammo! LOL!!
I really hope you would have given this a real chance. But you guys sound lime meanies!!
You guys are hypocrites if you delete this- because you'll allow articles about movies that don't exaist like "Power of the Dark Crystal" but won't allow an article about a character by an up and coming underground anime artist? You guys having an article about the "Batman vs Superman" movie that WILL NEVER COME OUT is another prime example.
Well I don't have much else to say. I just wish you would have given this a real chance.
Witaku (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
"It's a great day... for me to whoop somebody's ass!" -- Paul Thorn (Bob & Tom morning show) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witaku (talk • contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC) — Witaku (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment--I'm not a lime meanie! :-) The discussion process ought to take five days and people do change their minds. If in that time you can show this is notable (WP:NOT) and verifiable (WP:V) then I'll happily change mine.--And I know how you feel, the very first article I ever wrote got deleted. I was crushed and I didn't come back to Wikipedia for ages.
People on Wikipedia tend to talk in abbreviations, which can make them sound more hostile than they really are.
One thing that's definitely true: Wikipedia is unfair, inconsistent and hypocritical. Some articles get deleted while much less notable, verifiable or encyclopaedic ones survive unchallenged. Sorry, but that does happen a lot. --S Marshall (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Though FWIW, Power of the Dark Crystal does not have its own article. It's a redirect to the section of the Dark Crystal article where they talk about the possibility of a sequel. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Strong delete No independant sources, no indication of notability, no indication if the book will ever see print. Edward321 (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per all of above re: sources and notability. Appears to be promotional, to boot. JNW (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikatu appears to be creating a duplicate of the article on their User Page. [69]Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Edward321--
ARTICLE ON MY USER PAGE
Question for YOU Edward321 -- if I made a copy of the article "Nyrva Dragonrhyne", and put it on my user page, what's wrong with that? Your comment on the deletion discussion page for this article, you say--
Comment Wikatu appears to be creating a duplicate of the article on their User Page. [1] Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
So why is this an issue? Can you please clear this up? Aren't people entitled to put whatever they want on a user page here?
I am trying to ask you a fair question here, not attack you.
--- ADDED NOTE: When I read about the sandbox by the way, and what it was for, it said you could use your own user talk page as a "personal sandbox". So I was working on the article on my own page and then transferring the info to the article.
Let it go dude. As the CREATOR of Nyrva Dragonrhyne, I would love to see an article about her and lots of pictures of here here in an article on Wikipedia. But as you can see bro, these folks don't like underground, independant artists. You're only going to get yourself kicked off of here if you attack them. For as you can see here, it's as you said to me, the "mob mentality". One guy says it so they all say it.
I really could care less if they delete it. I'm going to put my own page about Nyrva (and all my other characters) up on other pages. So you can wait for that if you like. Watch my DevArt page for the release!
Let it go here dude, you aren't going to win.
For what it's worth, like I told you they allow sites for movies or other things that haven't come out yet or aren't going to happen (Batman vs Superman -- to my disappointment! I really hoped they'd make that one!) these people are selective about what they will allow and what they won't.
You are wrong about one thing bro, I'm NOT going to waste my time and talent lampooning this site. I really could care less. And I'm Nyrva's CREATOR talking! I don't give a "rat's tail" about Wikipedia at all, or whether or not they let the article stay.
So let it drop dude. Let them delete the stupid thing. Quit bothering the admins, you won't change their minds.
'Nuff said!
-- The Legendary Neomorphasis-- CREATOR OF NYRVA DRAGONRHYNE!
Strong Delete, perhaps salt. No sources, no indicating that it satisfies WP:N. meshach (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 21:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minor Oregon winery. Appears to fail WP:CORP - I cannot find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Existing links are only to the winery itself or to copy written by the winery. Merzbow (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The company also breeds horses, and I added information on that. --Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References added are insufficient for both the winery and its horse activity per WP:CORP. First is to some online horse webzine called "DressageDaily", that has a single sentence mentioning "Quailhurst". Source is unreliable, coverage is not significant. Second is to a newspaper, but the only mention of "Quailhurst" is the date of a tasting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wine competitions are a dime a dozen; even the crappiest wineries place somewhere; placing in a newspaper wine competition is like competing in the Special Olympics. It's good for the soul, but a poor judge of notability. Plus still does not satisfy WP:CORP - no significant coverage, just an entry on a list. - Merzbow (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. At first glance, this article looked like a keeper to me. But then when I examined the sources, I have to agree with the nominator. Single-line mentions in a publication and a profile on a web site about Oregon wineries aren't sufficient to establish notability for this winery. On the other hand, Merzbow's characterization of the competition is off. According to that reference, it's the largest competition in the Pacific Northwest (whether that makes it a notable competition is arguable). Also, that reference says the wine was favorably reviewed by Wine Spectator - but then, does a Wine Spectator review automatically make a winery notable? I'm not sure. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wine Spectator has over 200,000 reviews in its database, so I'd say no. Seriously, regional wine competitions are a dime a dozen, everyone claims theirs is the most important. Winning a medal in such a competition is meaningless; as you can see here, this particular one gives out about 50 gold medals per year; there's probably only a couple hundred wineries in the entire Northwest at most. - Merzbow (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Found the Wine Spectator source, from 2007-12-21. I agree, it's just a big list, although 91 points is a commendable score. Anyway, I've removed the "weak" from my "delete" assessment. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right in the middle. There are multiple significanct mentions in reliable secondary sources, including entire articles written about the business in Dressage Daily. So it does fit the formal WP:CORP. But for the most part these are minor publications. The place is more notable for raising horses than wine so the focus of the article needs to be expanded and shifted a bit if it's kept. Some examples of coverage, a couple I don't think in the article yet: [70][71][72]. Wikidemo (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the links you've listed, 2 is a blog, 3 is a single-sentence mention of the date of a tasting, neither which establish notability. That leaves 1, which is about the subject, but DressageDaily.com seems to be a self-published webzine by the author, Mary Phelps. Not reliable from what I can see. - Merzbow (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to show notability. I see nothing wrong with that. Scanlan (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As currently written, and with the current sources available giving only incidental mention, the notability seems marginal at best - so I'm forced to lean towards delete for now. Although, if it is deleted; I could see it potentially making a return when sources finally expand their coverage of the winery. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was leaning to a weak keep until I thought about the article. It is about horses and the owners as much as it is about the winery. Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Winning a wine competition can be a red herring and in fact I think we even deleted a bunch of the competition articles. While there are a few exceptions, notability for wineries usually takes a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear that the award is notable. All found sources except the dressage daily reference are passing mentions, so third-party coverage is not significant. Lack of evidence why this is notable compared with other wineries. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I contested the nominator's prod thinking this was salvageable despite it being a pretty clear case of COI. The dressage bit is not particularly notable thus the article's focus should not be shifted. Thus since this article is about the winery, the dressage stuff doesn't confer any notability to their winemaking activities (and vice versa). I thought the awards would help, but per the above, it appears that this winery should be given time to age and get more non-trivial coverage before it achieves notability. Also, Dressage Daily is sponsored by Mushroom Matrix, which seems to be a product associated with the owner of Quailhurst, Dr. Hausman.[75][76] Too much COI all around this enterprise for me. Katr67 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep due to the Internet record. 'largest webcast of all time' on Google brought up the included reference as the 3rd hit, with the first two hits being older news items or unsupported self-promotion. That could be sufficient evidence of notability. Otherwise, I believe "promo tours" should usually be detailed in the respective album article. -Verdatum (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this two day tour falls far short of notability. Furthermore no claim to be notable is made --T-rex 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting again. AfD template was removed from article by anon IP 8 days ago.Chick Bowen 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Madonna (entertainer). Almost encyclopedic and may be suitable for reuse. No good reason to actually delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:42, 31 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 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole point of this process is to give editors a chance to make a case. Best way to make a case is to satisfy objections by modifying the article to withstand criticism. As the article stands, no case has been made (my opinion which can be outweighed by others). As it is, this is a vague article with little support for a nice guy who is not particularly notable. Cite third party sources (preferably in English, but not necessarily so - just strengthens the case for an English language wikipedia entry) that indicate the subject stands out more than being a mildly accomplished academic. P.S. There is some indication of self-promotion (not a sin, but not encyclopedic in this case) specifically I quote, 1) "He has given advise to enterprises and political parties" and "Tres Sesenta Comunicación Integral is currently planning to expand to other cities of México." Feel free to chime in fellow editors. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:02, 31 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 (could have been no consensus which defaults to 'keep' anyway. Keep votes appeared to examine material in more detail. Would be safer if better sourced. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- no convincing assertion of notability. ReykYO! 04:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources stated or notability established. Artene50 (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete despite the apparent lack of effort to find any sources by anyone so far. I found one somewhat significant article here, and a dozen or so articles of less significant turn up in Google News, but it doesn't give us enough to write a decent-length verifiable stub. When in doubt I lean to delete articles vulnerable to promotion and coi. Skomorokh 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked for sources and didn't find any that established notability per WP:BAND--the Gazette-Times article is pretty much a rewrite of their website and does nothing to establish notability. Hence the afd. AGF and all that. Katr67 (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's helpful to mention that in the nomination to give subsequent commenters some context. I did AGF in saying there was no apparent research done. Thanks for your dedication and diligence, Skomorokh 13:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for the input--I don't tend to nominate things lightly and feel my contribs speak for themselves, but I'll be sure I mention any research I've done next time I nom something. I did really want these folks to be notable... Maybe in a couple of years. If there is ever a need for an article on the state banjo championships, they might be worthy of a mention there... Katr67 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep per Paul Erik below. Skomorokh 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my library database of news articles, "Severin Sisters" actually gets over 30 hits. Unfortunately, most of them are simply listings of their performances (they've done a fair bit of touring around Oregon and nearby states). Still, I was able to add a little to the article, enough for me to say weak keep under WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 05:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great work Paul! Is there any chance you could include a relevant quote in the offline references? It would go towards indication the significance of the coverage. Danke, Skomorokh 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article by D. Velasco includes: "The Severin Sisters, touring the Northwest since 2001, are known for their exceptional instrumental ability." "They play American roots music and a bit of bluegrass. Their show... is sure to draw a large crowd." Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 11:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example of an article I did not include, as I considered it a trivial mention was from The Oregonian, "Picks of the Week", 2007-10-02, p. FD5—as one of the "picks", a charity benefit at a vineyard, it notes that there is "entertainment by the Severin Sisters". Another example from The Oregonian, "Putting a Spotlight on Women in Music", 2003-08-01, p. 38: "An outgrowth of the increasingly popular Daisychain Music Fair, O Sister also shows off the city's impressive roster of bluegrass and roots music. Gender aside, the two-day event showcases a deep talent pool that includes such artists as Stephanie Schneiderman, the Flat Mountain Girls, Petty Cash, the Severin Sisters, Dee Settlemier and Nann Alleman, and Little Sue." Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Minor local coverage does not equal significant coverage. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well taken. Keep in mind, though, that there is nothing in the notability guidelines that discourages the use of local media to help to establish notability. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 03:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct, but it is an indicator of highly limited coverage as opposed to significant coverage which makes me question if the band is necessarily encyclopedic. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul Erik. Has toured nationally, so doesn't fail WP:MUSIC (criterion 4). Bands don't have to be well-known internationally to warrant a Wikipedia article. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As of this moment, criterion 4 reads: "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." So it's not about whether or not they have toured nationally it's about whether or not their national tour has received non-trival coverage in a reliable source. And I see no evidence of a national tour, just a regional one. Katr67 (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I only looked at the article where it mentions festivals on "national levels", didn't notice that the ref at the end of the line was referring to another sentence. Struck that, changed to weak keep, as I think an article with all this improvement in just a few days does have potential. Barely pass WP:MUSIC criterion 1. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep area has high diversity and is close to major population center. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 03:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Synergy 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If comments go to the bottom could you not just have moved it here and answered anyway...all it takes is a quik copy and paste.
Here it is pasted out of the history...you will not make me drop this simply by being dismissive.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE MERGED WITH THE LAMELLAR ICHTHYOSIS PAGE AS IT CAN LEAD TO OTHER RARE ICHTHYOSIFORMS AND IS A SEPERATE CONDITION IN ITSELF. Clearly you know nothing of the specific nature of the condition. Contact a dermatologist and they will happily explain this rare condition to you. How can you possibly say this is non-noteable? Just because you have never heard of it it doesn't make it non-noteable and it certainly is not a neologism because medics use this term. How can you decide this if you are not a wualified dermatologist? How can people be encouraged to use the wikipedia when their informative and highly researched articles are put forward for deletion? This is pathetic. Adam2307 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Well-known medical condition with several possible causes including lammelar ichthyosis. Search Google Scholar people... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Steven Fruitsmaak. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable condition, good referencing/article is possible. Shellbabelfish 20:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work, but it is not a non notable condition.— Ѕandahl 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article has now been partially rewritten. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - searching pubmed brings up nearly 60 articles with the exact phrase "collodian baby" in the title, going back about 20 years. One
review lists different Ichthyoses, separating this condition from other forms of congenital ichthyoses. The page, however, serioiusly needs some TLC to bring it up to wikipedia standards.~ Ciar ~(Talk to me!) 21:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition that has already been transwikied to wiktionary, see en:wiktionary. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dismiss per nom. No reason for this to be here. JuJube (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to dismissive This is a notable term but denial/dismissive is the primary expression. Artene50 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissive redirects to Dismissiveness. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR)
Delete There doesn't seem to be a topic here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteA dictionary definition. You cannot write a well-sourced encyclopedia article about dismissiveness. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. rootology (T) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a technical term in Attachment theory, being one of the four Attachment measures. A Google Scholar search for dismissivenessattachment turned up numerous relevant technical publications. Someone who actually knows this stuff should be encouraged to amplify it. It's quite clearly not just a dictionary definition. Richard Pinch (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this can develop into a useful disambiguation page, along the lines of Denial (disambiguation) - I tried to expand it to one. In any case, I'd at least keep a soft redirect to wikt:dismissive. --Amalthea (talk) 13:00, 29 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, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. If there's a legitimate article to be written, per Richard Pinch, it's probably still best to nuke this one and start over. ReykYO! 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a dictionary definition it does not belong in Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not because this is a dictionary definition that could never be expanded, but because it is apparently a bit of technical jargon that occupies the space and catches the links of a term with much broader application. The technical sense probably merits merger on one of the pages about the psychological theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 31 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, see nom's post at bottom.. TravellingCari 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned, unreferenced article which lacks notability, A number of claims that aren't backed up with any references.Rtphokie (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear what search strategy the nominator used in preparing for this AfD, if any was used at all, as the deletion guidelines ask of us. This article needs clean-up and addition of references, not deletion. I've added two. Other references are available. It meets WP:N notability guidelines. Keep. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 02:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the purposes of Wikipedia is to be a resource for information on many topics, which makes it a concern to see articles such as Beaker Street deleted. This page covers "merely" a radio show, but a show which was very popular over a large area of the mid-section of the United States. It is understood that popularity alone does not confer notability; however, in this case the impact and following of this show is significant, and helps to define the era during which the show existed. The article needs further refinement and better references, but it should not be a candidate for deletion. It meets WP:N notability guidelines. Keep.RI-Bill (talk) 06:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - references included do establish notabilty now. Still needs some work, additional references would help, particularly backing up ones like "first underground music program broadcast regularly". Also, merging this article and Clyde Clifford should be considered. --Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 31 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS Zgreb is not Zagreb, Croatia since Zgreb is reportedly in the Ukraine. But I found no reliable sources for it at all and am uncertain of its notability. Artene50 (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know the two are unrelated and think the current content should be deleted, I just think it's conceivable someone looking for Zagreb could misspell the name of the city in this way. ReykYO! 00:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 15:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline advertisement. The soruces (sic) for this article verify the company exists, and provided the shredding services for Shredding Day, but I say that if this is the only claim to notability then it's a pretty poor one. ReykYO! 00:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few about local franchises. Here's another one (from AP) which has some substantial coverage: [78]. Here's one from the New York Times[79]. I found that this search yielded more relevant results: [80]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs)
Shred-it is an industry leader and one of the leading secure mobile paper shredding companies in Canada. Wikipedia currently has a listing for Iron Mountain also a paper shredding and storage company (they are the world's largest), but there listing is of even less notability.
The sponsorship of Shredding Days, helps prevent Identity Theft and provides a public service and this organization should be recognized for it. This is why I believe this listing should not be deleted.
Here are some additional news articles referencing this company
Keep per Kology's and Pburka's sources. The article needs cleanup and expansion, but I'm now convinced that it doesn't need to be shredded itself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:10, 31 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 deletion (G12). -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:57, 31 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 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition of an Indian name. The article has been tagged for notability since February. Therefore it fails WP:DICTIONARY, WP:N & WP:V. Tavix (talk) 00:39, 31 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, Tavix (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Elango sounds pretty wierd to me, and I don't know any Tamil Tharnton345 (talk) 09:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If its notable, why are there no reliable sources for it? Wikipedia is not a dictionary for unverifiable names. Artene50 (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wizardman 21:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable initialism. The article seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. Tavix (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- 'tis a neologism. Possibly redirect to Stafford Beer, but I'm not sure I'd bother. ReykYO! 02:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a neologism isn't in-and-of-itself a reason to delete. The sources below seem to me to meet the requirements of WP:NEO. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable neologism. Fails WP:NEO. Undeath (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Loopholes can be precluded from just happening. Systems thinkers know they must design a system not just for the situation that exists but for the situations that will result when the system is put into operation. Humble system thinkers have a label for this, POSIWID, the purpose of a system is what it does (regardless of what the sponsors and developers intended it to do)."
I stopped after about 5 minutes, but I suspect there are a lot more. WP:NEO tells us only to delete a neologism if RS's can't be found that define the term. These clearly do. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs found by Hobit. Subject is not neologism when is is verifiable by multiple credible sources. Has potential for improvement. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
